Pulling a Wiggins

[hrotha]

So you're against whistleblowing and think the authorities shouldn't encourage it. Huh. Oookay.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Isn't Landis chasing whiste blower money if the US Government succeeds in their court case against Armstrong ? It paints a pretty picture !

Actually, its the US Government who is seeking restitution under the Federal Crimes Act for the money that Armstrong illegally used to profit from.

I didn't pick you as an Armstrong fan but I guess you like Wiggins so not a long stretch to make

Yes - And Landis is due to get 30% of any money if the US Government is successful in their court case against Armstrong - Strange that no-one else in the ' Armstrong Coterie' thought to be a whistle-blower - How convenient; Testify when your career is finished with the potential bonus of a big pay day - It says lots about Landis' character.

Because I correctly point out that UKAD needs to produce evidence to charge Wiggins, that somehow equates to me being supportive of Wiggins.

You are drawing a long bow with your latest post.

He'll get whatever is left after the 10 year of legal fees are paid out. He also won't get 30% of what the Government recieves as they need to cover their fees also. Not all fees are covered in a cost judgement.

 

[Digger]

Sam - whether or not David Z said Floyd wasn't in a good place mentally to wiggins is one thing - what wiggins did was scumbag behaviour - he went so personal - all to ingratiate himself to lance. Plus he knew, because he had been told by others on garmin about usp doping. that Floyd was telling the truth so he still backed lance so was lying himself.

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re:

Majority of the cycling press, national press and even riders who knew Landis well were never on Landis's side until after the reasoned decision and that was at the time Wiggins said all that personal stuff about Landis (from Barry, Zabriskie, Garmin time etc). He was just regurgitating the same as everyone else were before the reasoned decision on Armstrong.
People like Zabriskie called Landis the day after of the reasoned decision to apologise and now they are best buddies again. Just listen to the cyclingtips podcast from last year, it explains a lot.
What sent Landis over the edge mentally (according to him) was, when Landis came back in 2009, it was the same year as Armstrong. The press were using his lack of performance on the bike, to justify he must have been doping and clearly a mentalist liar, while at the same time cheering Armstrong's strong comeback and the new clean era. Wiggins was 4th in Tour that year. That is what this is all about between Landis & Wiggins. Wiggins joined that crap comeback mentalist brigade as he was still in the Armstrong bubble like everyone else was during the comeback year, yet nobody saw the irony of saying what they were saying. Pretty sick and that's where Landis himself admits he turned to his hip prescription drugs, alcohol and lots of recreational drugs to deal with it and the fact, even just 2 years earlier, Wiggins was so anti doping, but then when near the podium riding with Armstrong again didn't back up Landis. That's his own words.

Nice attempt to blame Wiggins' behavior on others. He did not just badmouth Landis. He ran down Ricco and others who were caught. He did this at the same time he was doping with bogus TUEs. Armstrong just wanted people to keep quiet about cycling's not so secret secret. He did not go out of his way to tar those who were caught. Wiggins did. He went to a whole different level of dooshbaggery. Wiggins is a dried chunk of sh*t hanging from the butt hair of cycling.

 

[del1962]

I suspect Filippo Simeoni disagrees

 

[pastronef]

Re:

I suspect Filippo Simeoni disagrees

Hamilton and Bassons too
maybe Lemond too?

 

[T_S_A_R]

Re:

So you're against whistleblowing and think the authorities shouldn't encourage it. Huh. Oookay.

Landis doesn't fit the classic description of a whistleblower though. He cheated to win the Tour and would have done it seven times or more if he could have gotten away with it. He's more like Ray Liotta in Goodfellas.

The Tagart version of history where everyone was an unwitting pawn of Lance and Bruyneel stinks. The report painted Zabriskie as some sort of tragic, corrupted innocent when he was just a opportunistic cheat like the rest of them.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

Majority of the cycling press, national press and even riders who knew Landis well were never on Landis's side until after the reasoned decision and that was at the time Wiggins said all that personal stuff about Landis (from Barry, Zabriskie, Garmin time etc). He was just regurgitating the same as everyone else were before the reasoned decision on Armstrong.
People like Zabriskie called Landis the day after of the reasoned decision to apologise and now they are best buddies again. Just listen to the cyclingtips podcast from last year, it explains a lot.
What sent Landis over the edge mentally (according to him) was, when Landis came back in 2009, it was the same year as Armstrong. The press were using his lack of performance on the bike, to justify he must have been doping and clearly a mentalist liar, while at the same time cheering Armstrong's strong comeback and the new clean era. Wiggins was 4th in Tour that year. That is what this is all about between Landis & Wiggins. Wiggins joined that crap comeback mentalist brigade as he was still in the Armstrong bubble like everyone else was during the comeback year, yet nobody saw the irony of saying what they were saying. Pretty sick and that's where Landis himself admits he turned to his hip prescription drugs, alcohol and lots of recreational drugs to deal with it and the fact, even just 2 years earlier, Wiggins was so anti doping, but then when near the podium riding with Armstrong again didn't back up Landis. That's his own words.

Nice attempt to blame Wiggins' behavior on others. He did not just badmouth Landis. He ran down Ricco and others who were caught. He did this at the same time he was doping with bogus TUEs. Armstrong just wanted people to keep quiet about cycling's not so secret secret. He did not go out of his way to tar those who were caught. Wiggins did. He went to a whole different level of dooshbaggery. Wiggins is a dried chunk of sh*t hanging from the butt hair of cycling.

I'm not blaming it on others. you read the press in 2009 and what riders were saying at the time - everyone was saying exactly the same thing, including Landis's team mates at the time. The reality is Armstrong was back, riders needed to keep their employment options open and not rock the boat. Not rocking the boat applies if you're doping or not doping.

This is Wiggins reason's' for saying what he did in 2010.

Wiggins raced with Landis’ former teammates David Zabriskie and Christian Vande Velde at Garmin, and with Michael Barry at Sky, and said that their descriptions of Landis coloured his own thinking on the matter.

“People were saying that he had four or five Twitter accounts and he was posting crazy stuff,” Wiggins told the Sunday Times. “Then you walk out of the Team Sky bus, someone says, ‘What do you think of what Landis has said?’ and you reply with some throwaway remarks that are misinformed and with the benefit of hindsight you would never say. I wasn’t going well in that Tour, I was feeling the pressure and it was easier for me to spit out from the tent than spit into it. Lance was still a powerful figure in the peloton and it was just easier to say something that meant he wasn’t going to be on your case.”
I take that to mean Armstrong was bullying Wiggins and the peloton re. saying anything positive in support of Landis or against him (now we know why), not that Wiggins is a bum clag wanting to deface Landis in the press for no reason.

 

[hrotha]

That's poppycock. If you don't want to rock the boat, you simply shut up. There's a world of difference between saying nothing that can give you trouble, and openly taking sides and supporting Armstrong at the expense of dragging Landis through the mud. Many riders chose to remain silent. They're not heroes, but they're not c**ts either. Wiggins may have been told by his Garmin teammates that Landis was a bit mentally unstable, but he had also been told (and this is a fact) enough about US Postal to know Landis was telling the truth.

 

[sniper]

That's poppycock. If you don't want to rock the boat, you simply shut up. There's a world of difference between saying nothing that can give you trouble, and openly taking sides and supporting Armstrong at the expense of dragging Landis through the mud. Many riders chose to remain silent. They're not heroes, but they're not c**ts either. Wiggins may have been told by his Garmin teammates that Landis was a bit mentally unstable, but he had also been told (and this is a fact) enough about US Postal to know Landis was telling the truth.

Yeah, still doesn't look good does it.
If I remember correctly, that bit quoted by samhocking was from a PR interview with Walsh in 2013.
Was probably part of Walsh' task description as a Sky employee.

Hindsight indeed.
Hindsight in this case being the knowledge that he'd better start disassociating himself with Lance QUICKLY, and start spinning his way out of the fact that he was all over the place discrediting the most important whistleblower in the history of the sport.

Very weak sauce from our Sir Brad, and the PR exercise with Walsh aint gonna change that.

 

[samhocking]

Yep, Wiggins should have maintained total omerta and simply not said anything with hindsight, you seem to be agreeing with him! Sit on the fence and shut-up and nothing changes and you can't be wrong either!

Landis's own comments recently backs up why Wiggins said what he did. All Landis is pissed about, was he believed Wiggins rode 2009 clean because of Wiggins anti-doping stance leading upto 2009 and even Zabriskie in that podcast confirmed there was zero signs of any doping in Garmin with Wiggins. Wiggins was therefore, according to Landis, in a perfect place to support Landis's allegations in that email sent in May 2010 during the tour in July 2010. I don't see why it's Wiggins responsibility though, he wasn't even there like Zabriski, Vande Velde & Barry. It's them who should have supported him. They are the real names who knew Landis was not crazy, yet they all told Wiggins the opposite. I doubt Wiggins made all that stuff up, he's not clever-enough to fabricate a story like that, especially when he's not involved directly anyway.
It's easy for Landis to be pissed, but he wasn't racing for a podium alongside Armstrong. Armstrong had hired a criminal defence attorney in May (when Landis was going off on one on Twitter etc) and it was announced during the 2010 Tour he was fighting using this defence attorney.
No rider supported Landis in the 2009/2010 tour. Everyone was saying the same as Wiggins or saying nothing, despite several riders 'knowing' first-hand Landis's rage was reasoned and accurate.
Sure, perhaps Wiggins could have done a Bassons on Armstrong in 2009 Tour and it sounds like had Wiggins known then what he knows now, he probably wished he did, but it's easy to say that now, like much to do with Armstrong & Landis.

 

[hrotha]

Re:

Yep, Wiggins should have maintained total omerta and simply not said anything with hindsight, you seem to be agreeing with him!

No. Omertà in cycling doesn't simply mean "do not talk at all about any doping-related issues ever". It means "do your best so that the secret ways of your underworld don't come out for outsiders to see". Speaking to reinforce that underworld and to attack someone who's trying to undermine that secrecy is the opposite of breaking omertà.

Actually breaking omertà and fighting for clean racing is much better than holding omertà by being passive.
Holding omertà by being passive is much better than holding omertà by actively attacking anyone who breaks omertà.

This isn't that complicated.

 

[samhocking]

If it's so non-complicated, why is this now seen as a Wiggins issue for not helping Landis in 2009/10? Wiggins was just a bystander at the time from the track. As Landis himself says, had Wiggins shouted about it before 2009 he wouldn't have been heard anyway as he was in the grupetto!

End of the day this isn't omerta in terms of doping, it's omerta or Armstrong support to prevent Armstrong bullying, not what you actually believe. They all saw Bassons and what happens if you try and beat Armstrong when speaking out against him during a Tour. No different than if Wiggins had wanted to say something. He simply couldn't without everyone else. Collectively, perhaps they could have taken on Armstrong via Landis. Individually it was never going to happen.

 

[hrotha]

You keep ignoring the key distinction between "attacking Armstrong", "staying silent" and "attacking Landis".

 

[samhocking]

Everybody was attacking Landis including those riders with first-hand evidence of being there, knowing what Wiggins said was wrong and not doing anything about that - that's my whole point. This is nothing to do with saying what you believe or know, it's saying what you need to say or not to have an easier Tour de France, while riding against Armstrong for the podium. They were all riding that 2010 Tour in Slipstream & Sky and all going for the same podium.

 

[hrotha]

And my point is that not everybody was attacking Landis, and that Wiggins would have had an easier Tour by not saying anything.

 

[samhocking]

Wiggins didn't know the truth, he didn't ride in USPostal - this is my whole point. You either believe he was told Landis was crazy or you don't. It's easy now to see what happened. In 2009 & 2010 Armstrong haden't even begun the SCA Promotions case, letalone the Federal Investigation. Pretty much the whole of cycling in terms of those with a self-interest were either sat on the defence if you were an ex-doper, or attacking Landis if your past was relatively anti-doping. This is what Landis is getting at with Wiggins. He said stuff without any evidence, because he wasn't there.

 

[hrotha]

Re:

Wiggins didn't know the truth, he didn't ride in USPostal - this is my whole point. You either believe he was told Landis was crazy or you don't. It's easy now to see what happened. In 2009 & 2010 Armstrong haden't even begun the SCA Promotions case, letalone the Federal Investigation. Pretty much the whole of cycling in terms of those with a self-interest were either sat on the defence if you were an ex-doper, or attacking Landis if your past was relatively anti-doping. This is what Landis is getting at with Wiggins. He said stuff without any evidence, because he wasn't there.

Wiggins did know the truth. Ask Vaughters.

 

[King Boonen]

I can't really believe anyone is even attempting to defend, justify or explain a person discussing someone else's mental health with the medai, whether it was well known or not. It's none of their business and they should keep their mouths shut.

 

[samhocking]

I'm talking about the truth and Landis's confesion to lying in may 2009, not about Armstrong doping truth.

 

[yaco]

Re:

So you're against whistleblowing and think the authorities shouldn't encourage it. Huh. Oookay.

You can whistle without accepting any rewards - Landis also cheated so, Why should he receive a monetary reward ?

It's poor form according to my moral compass.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

Isn't Landis chasing whiste blower money if the US Government succeeds in their court case against Armstrong ? It paints a pretty picture !

Actually, its the US Government who is seeking restitution under the Federal Crimes Act for the money that Armstrong illegally used to profit from.

I didn't pick you as an Armstrong fan but I guess you like Wiggins so not a long stretch to make

Yes - And Landis is due to get 30% of any money if the US Government is successful in their court case against Armstrong - Strange that no-one else in the ' Armstrong Coterie' thought to be a whistle-blower - How convenient; Testify when your career is finished with the potential bonus of a big pay day - It says lots about Landis' character.

Because I correctly point out that UKAD needs to produce evidence to charge Wiggins, that somehow equates to me being supportive of Wiggins.

You are drawing a long bow with your latest post.

He'll get whatever is left after the 10 year of legal fees are paid out. He also won't get 30% of what the Government recieves as they need to cover their fees also. Not all fees are covered in a cost judgement.

You are trying to rationalise Landis' behaviour - The contradiction is that Landis a confirmed cheat may get a reward - Further Landis was part of the US Postal team that all shared in the rewards of the sponsorship - The USA has a strange sense of justice.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

So you're against whistleblowing and think the authorities shouldn't encourage it. Huh. Oookay.

Landis doesn't fit the classic description of a whistleblower though. He cheated to win the Tour and would have done it seven times or more if he could have gotten away with it. He's more like Ray Liotta in Goodfellas.

The Tagart version of history where everyone was an unwitting pawn of Lance and Bruyneel stinks. The report painted Zabriskie as some sort of tragic, corrupted innocent when he was just a opportunistic cheat like the rest of them.

Nailed it with your post - It's a weakness of the USA system that a confirmed cheat may receive a reward - It's crazy.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

So you're against whistleblowing and think the authorities shouldn't encourage it. Huh. Oookay.

Landis doesn't fit the classic description of a whistleblower though. He cheated to win the Tour and would have done it seven times or more if he could have gotten away with it. He's more like Ray Liotta in Goodfellas.

The Tagart version of history where everyone was an unwitting pawn of Lance and Bruyneel stinks. The report painted Zabriskie as some sort of tragic, corrupted innocent when he was just a opportunistic cheat like the rest of them.

Nailed it with your post - It's a weakness of the USA system that a confirmed cheat may receive a reward - It's crazy.

its a weakness of the global anti doping system that meant it needed a whistleblower to uncover a huge PED program being done under the noses and in front of the noses of the whole sport and world

the argument about rewarding whistleblowers is a different one that transcends sport and by definition a lot of whislteblowers will be guilty of misdemeanors because they know the story....

 

[gooner]

Wiggins deserves the criticism for commenting on Landis' mental health but do not give me this paragon of virtue with Landis considering his past behaviour too. He was Lance Armstrong, whistleblower or not.

Encouraging whistleblowing is one thing, yet the financial aspect of it is the only reason Landis has come forward. I don't think he cares in the slightest about the welfare of the sport. He had this idea from Prentice Steffen when Lim told him about it years previously before he came clean. When he had nowhere to go after not getting a ride with Radioshack, he then decides to initiate it.

I consider Kimmage and the Stepanovas as whistleblowers in sport who did it for the right reasons. Landis no, the complete opposite.

In the context of sport, motives are key to judge and discuss.

The rewards were there for Landis when he got busted. He could have come clean then, reduced ban and he could have rode the Tour again. He refused and fought the process in every way possible.