Team Ineos (Formerly the Sky thread)

[martinvickers]

Which book? There is a new Wiggins book every week, so which one?

In fact you might index or quote the relevant passage, because I do not recall PK interviewing BW in 2009.

The book is his most recent, MY TIME.

I got it on Kindle, 'cos it's cheaper, but that has no 'index', per se. I did get they year wrong, it was 2008, according to the book. It's page 187 of the book as printed.

From the book

In 2008 I gave an interview to Paul Kimmage in which he asked me why I thought it was good that Lance was coming back to the sport. It was difficult, because when you are being interviewed by Paul, you are being scrutinised constantly. It's not a relaxed, informal chat; you feel very self-conscious, wary of every word you say and how it can be interpreted.I felt I was being set up a little as a voice for his beliefs - it was something I'd felt from doing interviews with him from 2006 onwards.

I thought I was in danger of getting in a position with Paul where I was telling him what he wanted to hear, because he could be quite aggressive at times when you didn't say what he wanted you to.

So I stuck to my line that Lance returning was good for the sport.

... With hindsight I'm glad i never criticised him. I had to go and race with the guy and everyone around him. I know what Lance is like if you make an enemy of him. We've seen it in the past. He could have made my life very difficult.

But if he were doping in 2009-2010, he can get f***ed, completely."

If you read the rest of that chapter, it's all pretty consistent - He never was the 'hero' of the cofidis rant - he wasn't being brave that day, he was being angry. And anger seems to be the dominant emotion a lot of the time, especially around doping. Anger at Armstrong, anger at Kimmage, anger at dopers generally, anger at doping accusations against him.

As I've said before there is a pattern- Wiggins seems to erupt, not as some crusader against doping, but simply when it f***s about with his life.

Kimmage, the Kimmage Mail article suggests, wanted Wiggins to be the Cofidis crusader all the time, understandably. I don't think Kimmage doubts Wiggins was clean back in those days, but is frustrated that the righteous anger of those days seems to have disappeared.

But it was never righteous anger. It was just anger.

Reading the book, it's clear that Omerta, and Lance were incredibly strong. Wiggins didn't have the courage to take it on, as such. Hardly a surprise. But is that proof of his own doping? hmmm, no entirely convinced, must say.

 

[Grandillusion]

Do you not think Sky's dismissal of anyone who admits to involvement in doping a strong statement? The reaction from the pro-teams has generally been a deafening silence, and from pro-riders incredibly inconsistent, ranging from the 'Lance did win those races' from the likes of Contador and most recently Nibali (although from the Italian) to utter condemnation from Routley. Wiggins' reaction is certainly closer to Routley than it is to Contador.

The other reaction is the calls for a 'truth and reconciliation' process, where by you admit it, sound contrite and then get a pat on the back and carry on. I personally don't like that: at least Sky's policy puniches people that have cheated and haven't been sanctioned. You have to remember that through doping people were earning a living, winning prize money and endorsements, and spent their careers deceiving the fans. I don't see why they should get off scot-free.

We all want cycling to come out swinging now the elephant in the room can be seen by everyone, the problem is so many people in cycling have been involved in someway in the past, all the way up to Pat and Hein at the top. So many people can't come out in condemnation because they would be condemning themselves. And I'm not implicating Sky in that statement, rather the entire pro-tour

Everything you say is obviously true. I just suppose I'm disappointed at the lack of any sense of solidarity for people who've had a bl**dy hard time for so long, and are finally getting somewhere having had pretty much zero support for years. Fighting the same battle for clean cycling Sky are (now) but with much greater investment and cost, and I don't mean just money. LeMond has had an awful decade. A bit of human kindness & solidarity is what I'm getting at. They seem self-obsessed & uncaring.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

But if he were doping in 2009-2010, he can get f***ed, completely

So Brad's still not convinced?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

F*** that, you make your own case, I'm not doing your donkey work for you. And what part of logical fallicy don't you understand?

I've made my case. If you can't be bothered to develop a more sophisticated understanding then that isn't my problem.

 

[martinvickers]

So Brad's still not convinced?

I've no idea - it can be read several ways; your own interpretation included. Given he has since been promoted to 3rd, I'd say he ought to be convinced by now.

 

[Daniel Benson]

Deleted an offensive post from here. Please keep it civil.

 

[martinvickers]

I've made my case. If you can't be bothered to develop a more sophisticated understanding then that isn't my problem.

you've made no bl**dy case, you've just made some oblique reference to weak states (are we talking Failed States Index here or something?) but you've made no case whatsoever.

You really ought to get your head around the idea that there is more to making a case than hurling out a stream of conciousness amalgam of acronyms and gibberish.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I've no idea - it can be read several ways; your own interpretation included. Given he has since been promoted to 3rd, I'd say he ought to be convinced by now.

Really now. Please list the ways it can be interpreted. The word IF is a conditional, for starters, so I fail to see how it can be interpreted as

"he doped, therefore he can get ------ed".

 

[martinvickers]

Really now.

Yes, really, DW

Please list the ways it can be interpreted. The word IF is a conditional, for starters, so I fail to see how it can be interpreted as

"he doped, therefore he can get ------ed".

Well, most simply, it can be either an expression of doubt on the reality of the premise - your position, and a reasonable one too.

But it could also equally validly be a simple expression of inductive reasoning from the premise - if A, then B - without any particular view on the validity of A.

(quite often used, actually, when responding to what is perceived as an insult or bad behaviour - "if you've gone and done that (knowing full well you have), you can go...add expletive here ...yourself.)

Or it could be inserted at the insistence of lawyers, and a more direct accusation removed.

And to be honest, in your dogged pursuit of the Ghent wonder, we're now going down some grammatical dark allies. Let's stick to evidence of wrongdoing, shall we?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And to be honest, in your dogged pursuit of the Ghent wonder, we're now going down some grammatical dark allies. Let's stick to evidence of wrongdoing, shall we?

You said many ways - but you mean 2?

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

well done for having that conviction

it's a fact there is zero evidence of doping...............however i'm a realist

and hold reservation...............to be honest i am sceptical of wiggo

and froomes performances but i'm honest enough to realise that i'm

likely to be wrong

it's a shame that members who think themselves cleverer than you and i

poke fun at youself for stating what you believe

then explain to me why they would dope froome so much until he's better than wiggins after all it's the bradley wiggins show with sky

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The book is his most recent, MY TIME.

I got it on Kindle, 'cos it's cheaper, but that has no 'index', per se. I did get they year wrong, it was 2008, according to the book. It's page 187 of the book as printed.

Cool, thanks.
But there are 2 different points here, one is Kimmage, the other Brad.

If you read the rest of that chapter, it's all pretty consistent - He never was the 'hero' of the cofidis rant - he wasn't being brave that day, he was being angry. And anger seems to be the dominant emotion a lot of the time, especially around doping. Anger at Armstrong, anger at Kimmage, anger at dopers generally, anger at doping accusations against him.

As I've said before there is a pattern- Wiggins seems to erupt, not as some crusader against doping, but simply when it f***s about with his life.

Kimmage does not put words in your mouth - he just asks tough relevant questions.

Brad to be fair gives great interviews - they are rarely scripted or full of PR fluff. He speaks plainly.
I also think he does not enjoy the attention or having to answer for others - the latter is fair enough- but I don't see why anyone who is being honest would have anything to fear talking to Kimmage.

Kimmage, the Kimmage Mail article suggests, wanted Wiggins to be the Cofidis crusader all the time, understandably. I don't think Kimmage doubts Wiggins was clean back in those days, but is frustrated that the righteous anger of those days seems to have disappeared.

But it was never righteous anger. It was just anger.

Reading the book, it's clear that Omerta, and Lance were incredibly strong. Wiggins didn't have the courage to take it on, as such. Hardly a surprise. But is that proof of his own doping? hmmm, no entirely convinced, must say.

Whatever type of anger it was - the question is valid, why did it dissapear?

 

[Hugh Januss]

Shouldn't it be the other way round? Like clean until proven to be drug cheats?
So the default situation for Sky is they're dopers until somebody comes up with evidence they are not... OK...

Perhaps it should, but nobody in pro cycling (from stars to managers to officials) has done a thing to earn that kind of trust over the past 20 or more years.

 

[martinvickers]

Cool, thanks.
But there are 2 different points here, one is Kimmage, the other Brad.


Kimmage does not put words in your mouth - he just asks tough relevant questions.

Brad to be fair gives great interviews - they are rarely scripted or full of PR fluff. He speaks plainly.
I also think he does not enjoy the attention or having to answer for others - the latter is fair enough- but I don't see why anyone who is being honest would have anything to fear talking to Kimmage.

Whatever type of anger it was - the question is valid, why did it dissapear?

Valid, absolutely.

I'm not sure it did disappear - it just got redirected, as the 'Twitter' c***s found to their cost! The book is a genuinely interesting read, albeit full of the usual pr guff - but for example, he pulls very few punches about Froome - he was clearly furious with him for his couple of stunts in the Tour.

See, I think there's a Keyser soze element to all this - a lot of the accusations against wiggins and sky assume a sort of organisational genius - that this team were almost a bit robotic in 'getting the job' done. Everything pre=planned, every thing cynical. Understandable in the sport

But the greatest trick the devil ever pulled, etc...if you read the book, you get the strong vibe that wiggins is more or less a permanant pain in the ****, and that froome and wiggins alll but self-immolated during the tour!

 

[martinvickers]

You said many ways - but you mean 2?

I think it was three, actually

As to whether three is 'many', well, that's another blindalley if your interested, I suppose - not sure what it proves about the cycling, though?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Valid, absolutely.

I'm not sure it did disappear - it just got redirected, as the 'Twitter' c***s found to their cost! The book is a genuinely interesting read, albeit full of the usual pr guff - but for example, he pulls very few punches about Froome - he was clearly furious with him for his couple of stunts in the Tour.

See, I think there's a Keyser soze element to all this - a lot of the accusations against wiggins and sky assume a sort of organisational genius - that this team were almost a bit robotic in 'getting the job' done. Everything pre=planned, every thing cynical. Understandable in the sport

But the greatest trick the devil ever pulled, etc...if you read the book, you get the strong vibe that wiggins is more or less a permanant pain in the ****, and that froome and wiggins alll but self-immolated during the tour!

I think Sky as a team are slick (the good and bad)- I don't think Brad is.
He seems to be someone who wants to push himself to the limit - and is not interested or wants the demands that come with being in the public eye (but likes the ££ & mod designer stuff)

That has no bearing on whether he dopes or not - what I find intriguing is the stance of Sky - who seem to want to be successful. Nothing wrong with that obviously, but they are the ones to cross their own line. That is not good and no PR guff hides it.

I have just downloaded the book -no idea when I will get to read it but.... So thanks for your recommendation.

 

[martinvickers]

no probs - have to say nowhere near as good as either Rough Ride or Secret Race, but still interesting for the bits between the lines...

 

[JimmyFingers]

Whatever type of anger it was - the question is valid, why did it dissapear?

Greater maturity all round? Wiggins was known for throwing tantrums, a behaviour which he has curbed.

Also he started winning on the road, and his feeling when he was at Confidis was that it was impossible to win without cheating. He no longer holds that to be the case.

But 5 years is a long time to grow and change. By all accounts he is a much calmer, rounder character than he was in his twenties.

There was that moment in the TT of the Dauphine where he slipped a chain and I remember him being praised on not throwing the bike away, because that is the way he would have reacted earlier in his career. I believe Brad himself has alluded to this in interviews

 

[coinneach]

I would not underestimate the impact the team psychiatrist has had on Brad (and others). He's off now to UK sport(?)...it'll be interesting to see if anyone can replace him.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Greater maturity all round? Wiggins was known for throwing tantrums, a behaviour which he has curbs.

Also he started winning on the road, and his feeling when he was at Confidis was that it was impossible to win without cheating. He no longer holds that to be the case.

But 5 years is a long time to grow and change. By all accounts he is a much clamer, rounder character than he was in his twenties.

There was that moment in the TT of the Dauphine where he slipped a chain and I remember him being praised on not throwing the bike away, because that is the way he would have reacted earlier in his career. I believe Brad himself has alluded to this in interviews

My first reaction is that the above is complete make believe (I don't mind that he is at times obnoxious or rude - but it is laughable that it is curbed, I would say the lady that hit him last week ears are still bleeding)

So, then why is it mature Bradley cannot clearly articulate his feelings? Why did mature Bradley not want Kimmage to come to the Tour?

 

[ebandit]

showtime

then explain to me why they would dope froome so much until he's better than wiggins after all it's the bradley wiggins show with sky

your alreet ryo?

you're asking Me? I'm not even sure that there was any doping

2012 tdf was the wiggo show

froome hopes that 2013 tdf will be for him

we did see a better alien in the 2011 vuelta ............was that a wiggo

target?

 

[JimmyFingers]

My first reaction is that the above is complete make believe (I don't mind that he is at times obnoxious or rude - but it is laughable that it is curbed, I would say the lady that hit him last week ears are still bleeding)

So, then why is it mature Bradley cannot clearly articulate his feelings? Why did mature Bradley not want Kimmage to come to the Tour?

I was speculating of course, I make no pretense otherwise. However people do change emotionally in five years, it's hardly fantasy to propose it.

I will ask why should he want Kimmage there? I think he generally articulates his feelings pretty well, you said yourself he is a straight-talker.

 

[Froome19]

I would not underestimate the impact the team psychiatrist has had on Brad (and others). He's off now to UK sport(?)...it'll be interesting to see if anyone can replace him.

Peeters.. he curbed Ronnie O'sullivan enough in order that he could win the Worlds. So in comparison getting Bradley to refrain from throwing his bike is a piece of cake. He has generally been involved in a lot of areas of British sport and is rated very highly..

 

[andy1234]

My first reaction is that the above is complete make believe (I don't mind that he is at times obnoxious or rude - but it is laughable that it is curbed, I would say the lady that hit him last week ears are still bleeding)

So, then why is it mature Bradley cannot clearly articulate his feelings? Why did mature Bradley not want Kimmage to come to the Tour?

I have already answered that for you. You just don't believe it.
(that was the "educated" part)

It might however, not be the reason Sky blocked Kimmage,
(that was the "guess" part)

 

[autologous]

The book is his most recent, MY TIME.

So I stuck to my line that Lance returning was good for the sport.

... With hindsight I'm glad i never criticised him. I had to go and race with the guy and everyone around him. I know what Lance is like if you make an enemy of him. We've seen it in the past. He could have made my life very difficult.

But if he were doping in 2009-2010, he can get f***ed, completely."

I got it on Kindle, 'cos it's cheaper, but that has no 'index', per se. I did get they year wrong, it was 2008, according to the book. It's page 187 of the book as printed.

Surely you must be fabricating this quote ?
Wiggins said that he never raced against Lance.