Wigans goes there. Cadence!

[Parker]

2 when you said Wiggins refrained this time because he got "heck" last time for suggesting Sastre doped, who did he get "heck" from?

As far as this forum was concerned, it was just one person...

Wiggins - Sastre - "Cadel Evans is the first Tour de France champion in a long time that we can believe in"

Wiggins afterall did say before he won the Tour that Cadel was the "first tour winner we could believe in" but since then Sky have taken all the credit for themselves.

While it would not neccesarily make it believable if their line was that people like Evans, Hejsedal Wiggins (and especially if they said Sastre) have shown it is possible to win clean, i find it curious that Sky have refused to credit anyone else in the story of how they win clean, and choose to portray themselves not as part of the movement but as the movement itself.

i dont like how Sky and wiggins keep shouting about how they "proved one can win clean".

What exactly did they do in that regard that Sastre and Evans didn't?

Wiggins had no problem accusing Sastre of doping. I have no problem therefore accusing Wiggins of doping.

And that's just from a brief search.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

And that's just from a brief search.

Are you suggesting Wiggins did not mention clean names in an interview where he claims most TdF winners dope, because a random pseudonym on a random forum somewhere gave him "heck"?

Goodness

 

[Parker]

Are you suggesting Wiggins did not mention clean names in an interview where he claims most TdF winners dope, because a random pseudonym on a random forum somewhere gave him "heck"?

Goodness

Try reading.

 

[the sceptic]

Are you suggesting Wiggins did not mention clean names in an interview where he claims most TdF winners dope, because a random pseudonym on a random forum somewhere gave him "heck"?

Goodness

skybots crawling up from under their rocks. looks like the season is about to begin

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Catwhoorg: Wiggins did not name clean riders because last time he got heck for not mentioning Sastre
The Hitch: who did he get heck from (that would lead Wiggins to not name names)
Parker: You did, The Hitch, you gave him heck, here, let me quote you repeatedly
Dear Wiggo:

Are you suggesting Wiggins did not mention clean names in an interview where he claims most TdF winners dope, because a random pseudonym (The Hitch) on a random forum (The Clinic) somewhere gave him "heck"?

Goodness

Try reading.

Sorry dude but you clearly missed the entire conversation and should back up a bit and do some of this mysterious reading stuff yourself.

 

[Samson777]

2. I recall reading plenty of flack at the time he said it. Forums, and other outlets. (I want to say BBC message boards etc, but its a few years ago)

3. I didn't say I believe Sastre to be dirty. I said I didn't believe him to be clean. To me he is in a grey area, suspicious, but no significant evidence against him.

Let me see if got this straight: Sastre is in a grey area and is suspicious. Froome and Wiggins on the other hand is in a clear area and is not suspicious.
Did I get that right? If so, would you care to explain why that is the case?

 

[Parker]

Sorry dude but you clearly missed the entire conversation and should back up a bit and do some of this mysterious reading stuff yourself.

I'm basing my comments on you all thinking that you have some sort of impact outside this forum. That in some way you represent the Zeitgeist in cycling (rather than being the Asylum everyone laughs at). That is the spirit in which Catwhoorg made his comment and on which I made mine.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm basing my comments on you all thinking that you have some sort of impact outside this forum. That in some way you represent the Zeitgeist in cycling (rather than being the Asylum everyone laughs at). That is the spirit in which Catwhoorg made his comment and on which I made mine.

1. Catwhoorg should speak for himself. I am 96.7% onfident you are completely and utterly wrong here, and a victim of confirmation bias. I will let Catwhoorg, if he can be bothered, confirm or deny this claim.

2. To claim you were being facetious makes no sense. When I asked for clarification, instead of saying, "No, I forgot the emoticon, but I was being sarcastic", you instead wrote, "Try reading".

The thing is, I did read, and nowhere did you suggest your post was sarcastic or "in the spirit of blah blah blah mock anyone who doesn't believe in Sky blah blah blah" like you are now.

Given you are also a member of the forum, as are a number of your Sky believing mates, "you all thinking you are the zeitgeist blah blah blah" is somewhat self defeating, don't you think? Coz you're including all your Sky believing mates in the word, "all".

 

[The Hitch]

As far as this forum was concerned, it was just one person...

And that's just from a brief search.

Nice try lol. Classic sky behaviour. Pretending to do something and not actually doing it, and using deception.

THIS is a brief search.

This is the offending quote. It's not so much that he directly accuses Sastre of doping, but more that he straight up announces Evans is the first Tour winner everyone can believe in, which by proxy states that we can't believe in Sastre.

Far more people here found a problem with wiggos massive hypocrisy than you claim. Here is some advice. Next time you use lies to try and win an argument, pick someone who isn't going to remember other people's posts and catch you jn it.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Before this disappears into a vortex of crap, let's back it up again.

PARKER: why did Wiggins avoid naming the clean riders who have won the Tour, when he clearly talks like he knows who they are?

 

[The Hitch]

I'm basing my comments on you all thinking that you have some sort of impact outside this forum. That in some way you represent the Zeitgeist in cycling (rather than being the Asylum everyone laughs at). That is the spirit in which Catwhoorg made his comment and on which I made mine.

Umm no - mega logic fail here.

Cawthorg was the one who suggested that Wiggins geared his answers to internet boards.

I - The Hitch,- bone idle ****er clinician, am making the exact opposite point. I have never claimed the clinic has influence and I don't care that it doesnt.

Yet you were so desperate to force the exceptionally simple paradigm, that all skys internet doubters (cue mandatory asylum insult and hope it lands) are playing up their influence (something no one has actually done) that you seem to have convinced yourself everyone was saying the exact opposite of what they were.

The words "goodbye Lenin" come to mind. not unlike the character in that film, you seem determined to gear what you see and hear to the reality you've already established in your brain, even if they contradict.

Explains some of the other desperate defenses you've used before, and those, unlike the clinic, actually were ridiculed.

 

[Parker]

PARKER: why did Wiggins avoid naming the clean riders who have won the Tour, when he clearly talks like he knows who they are?

Saying 'you can count them on one hand' is just a way of saying 'there are very few'. It's not literal. He's not claiming to know who, just that they are not numerous. Do you disagree?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Saying 'you can count them on one hand' is just a way of saying 'there are very few'. It's not literal. He's not claiming to know who, just that they are not numerous. Do you disagree?

I disagree that he does not know or claim to know who they are, given he mentioned Cadel last time and himself this time.

He did not mention Froome nor again Sastre.

The fact that he is saying they are a small number still - to my mind at least - includes the admission of knowing who they are.

If he is basing his claim purely on the premise of "never tested positive", how many is that?

 

[ferryman]

I disagree that he does not know or claim to know who they are, given he mentioned Cadel last time and himself this time.

He did not mention Froome nor again Sastre.

The fact that he is saying they are a small number still - to my mind at least - includes the admission of knowing who they are.

If he is basing his claim purely on the premise of "never tested positive", how many is that?

Andy is obviously the fifth digit

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Andy is obviously the fifth digit

Or Greg Lemond.

 

[doperhopper]

poor Wiggo, so frustrated from being Vroomed, he should shut up and retire to his favourite pub before they get busted - so that he can be remembered with all honors like BigMig (and avoid Uniballer-style execution)

 

[ferryman]

Or Greg Lemond.

Not in his ken. Must be Andy

 

[the sceptic]

Indurain never tested positive or confessed so hes got to be cleans.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Indurain never tested positive or confessed so hes got to be cleans.

Actually, he did test positive.

 

[86TDFWinner]

poor Wiggo, so frustrated from being Vroomed, he should shut up and retire to his favourite pub before they get busted - so that he can be remembered with all honors like BigMig (and avoid Uniballer-style execution)

LOL, too funny

 

[blackcat]

poor Wiggo, so frustrated from being Vroomed, he should shut up and retire to his favourite pub before they get busted - so that he can be remembered with all honors like BigMig (and avoid Uniballer-style execution)

i am waiting for his knighthood to be stripped and then give it to Frodo by the powers of mordorf

 

[blackcat]

I disagree that he does not know or claim to know who they are, given he mentioned Cadel last time and himself this time.

He did not mention Froome nor again Sastre.

The fact that he is saying they are a small number still - to my mind at least - includes the admission of knowing who they are.

If he is basing his claim purely on the premise of "never tested positive", how many is that?

there has never been a clean winner, besides lemond p'raps

 

[observer]

Personally I just think that Wiggins doesn't really think too much before he talks.

He is most likely still fixated with Froome, and is trying to have a dig at him, without really having a dig at him. He leaves himself open to sometime in the future saying he meant Froome as clean.

Words come out of his mouth, but says nothing at the same time, a bit like this post actually.

 

[Ripper]

The weight of the world rests on Wiggo's Trout like shoulders.

 

[Ripper]

I'm basing my comments on you all thinking that you have some sort of impact outside this forum. That in some way you represent the Zeitgeist in cycling (rather than being the Asylum everyone laughs at). That is the spirit in which Catwhoorg made his comment and on which I made mine.

What the f*ck are you talking 'bout Willis? Not a lot of folks thinking of heavy impact.