Wiggins, a man in love!

Page 15 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Libertine Seguros

Libertine Seguros

Feb 20, 2010
33,064
15,267
28,180
biker jk said:
As credible as this?

“If you consider my situation: a guy who comes back from arguably, you know, a death sentence, why would I then enter into a sport and dope myself up and risk my life again? That's crazy. I would never do that. No. No way.” Lance Armstrong
Click to expand...

bettiniphoto_0025117_1_full_1206556614_4571990.jpg


The question, of course is, who plays that role for Wiggins if the house of cards is to tumble? Some random British domestique in the middle of nowhere?
 
N

Nocontest

Jul 14, 2012
108
0
0
sniper said:
are you joking?

the statement contains
- no words on LA (if Wiggo used to be so ****ed off for finishing behind dopers, then why no outcry on him missing out on the 2009 podium thanks to one of the biggest dopers of the history of cycling?:rolleyes:)
- no words on why he refused to have Kimmage as an intern during the TdF (so much for being "transparent" and "doing everything to convince the fans")
- no words on Leinders

the statement makes my eyes rain tbh.
Click to expand...

It is a statement not a dissertation regarding every possible throw away statement he has made over his lifetime. In reality he didn't even need to say as much as he did, I wouldn't have. Like he has said, what more is he expected to do? he is tested every day. why should he allow himself to be drawn into commenting on history? Why should he accede to have Kimmage tag along? maybe he doesn't like the guy, he wouldn't be alone there. As to your Armstrong inference; why the hell would he get drawn into that? As many have experienced, criticising Armstrong tended to have bad repecussions, why bother putting yourself in that situation.

Also if you check out the responses to his article, positive comments outweigh negative about 200/1. Don't mistake the forum as being representative of the 'fans' you are concerned about.
 
Libertine Seguros

Libertine Seguros

Feb 20, 2010
33,064
15,267
28,180
Nocontest said:
Also if you check out the responses to his article, positive comments outweigh negative about 200/1. Don't mistake the forum as being representative of the 'fans' you are concerned about.
Click to expand...
A number of responses have been removed, many questioning him, and more questioning Froome.
Nocontest said:
So if one guy lies it automatically means that every future winner also lies by default...sad

-20
Click to expand...
Bradley Wiggins himself said in 2007 that people would find it hard to believe in Tour winners 'for the next six Tours'. This is the fifth Tour since then.

Bradley himself recognised that we would find it hard to believe in, and especially with a team performance like this one. Which makes his outburst all the more strange, since it would appear to match up with his expectations prior to becoming a big star on the road in his own right. And, PR recommendation or not, his statements since that outburst have shown that he does at least recognise that he was perhaps a bit too forthright in his criticism of ALL people who have suspicions, simply because 25 years of being lied to has meant cycling fans find it hard to have that level of blind faith. Maybe the once-a-year guys who watch it hear of Froome being 2nd in the "Tour of Spain" and figure he must therefore be a big guy, and not realise why many all-year-round cycling fans find those results suspicious, can have blind faith (with at least part of the time patriotic blinkers on), but most of us who've been watching the sport year round for years just can't.
 
S

Square-pedaller

Apr 8, 2010
329
0
0
sniper said:
the statement contains
- no words on LA (if Wiggo used to be so ****ed off for finishing behind dopers, then why no outcry on him missing out on the 2009 podium thanks to one of the biggest dopers of the history of cycling?:rolleyes:)
- no words on why he refused to have Kimmage as an intern during the TdF (so much for being "transparent" and "doing everything to convince the fans")
- no words on Leinders
Click to expand...

... - no simple, direct statement that he hasn't doped in the past, and isn't doping now (see http://liespotting.com/2011/06/liespotting-lance-armstrong-part-2-expert-analysis/). (I find some wording very strange "I know exactly why I wouldn't dope" could have been the direct statement "I know exactly why I don't dope". I'm not saying that there was a deliberate intent in using weasel words, but he just doesn't seem very comfortable with direct "I don't dope" wording.)
- no explanation of possible factors that might explain himself and three teammates scoring so highly on the UCI's suspicion list

Overall, I don't think that the article shows that he dopes. It just isn't the ringing proof that he doesn't dope that some fans are claiming.
 
N

Nocontest

Jul 14, 2012
108
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
A number of responses have been removed, many questioning him, and more questioning Froome.

Bradley Wiggins himself said in 2007 that people would find it hard to believe in Tour winners 'for the next six Tours'. This is the fifth Tour since then.

Bradley himself recognised that we would find it hard to believe in, and especially with a team performance like this one. Which makes his outburst all the more strange, since it would appear to match up with his expectations prior to becoming a big star on the road in his own right. And, PR recommendation or not, his statements since that outburst have shown that he does at least recognise that he was perhaps a bit too forthright in his criticism of ALL people who have suspicions, simply because 25 years of being lied to has meant cycling fans find it hard to have that level of blind faith. Maybe the once-a-year guys who watch it hear of Froome being 2nd in the "Tour of Spain" and figure he must therefore be a big guy, and not realise why many all-year-round cycling fans find those results suspicious, can have blind faith (with at least part of the time patriotic blinkers on), but most of us who've been watching the sport year round for years just can't.
Click to expand...

I totally agree that people, and in particular those who have been following the sport for years have every right to be sceptical. Having said that, Wgigins is in the situation that no matter what he says (or doesn't say), it will be picked apart for every possible innuendo or minor contradiction. People have a right to change their views over time and not be hung out to dry on something they had a contrary view on in the past. Also, as I have said in another post; if they were team doping, why would they line themselves up for the inevitable scrutiny they are currently facing by being so obviously dominant? I would be the last thing they would do in my opinion.
 
N

Nocontest

Jul 14, 2012
108
0
0
Square-pedaller said:
... - no simple, direct statement that he hasn't doped in the past, and isn't doping now (see http://liespotting.com/2011/06/liespotting-lance-armstrong-part-2-expert-analysis/). (I find some wording very strange "I know exactly why I wouldn't dope" could have been the direct statement "I know exactly why I don't dope". I'm not saying that there was a deliberate intent in using weasel words, but he just doesn't seem very comfortable with direct "I don't dope" wording.)
- no explanation of possible factors that might explain himself and three teammates scoring so highly on the UCI's suspicion list

Overall, I don't think that the article shows that he dopes. It just isn't the ringing proof that he doesn't dope that some fans are claiming.
Click to expand...

Maybe you could ask him to tattoo it on his forehead. His comments were pretty clear to me. To put it round the other way, if he tested positive in the future it would be pretty damn hard for him to use this article in his own defence!
 
S

Square-pedaller

Apr 8, 2010
329
0
0
Nocontest said:
... His comments were pretty clear to me. To put it round the other way, if he tested positive in the future it would be pretty damn hard for him to use this article in his own defence!
Click to expand...

That's the point that I was trying to make - that his comments appear clear, but actually they're not. The article linked explains why that's important.

I don't understand the point you're making in your last sentence. Perhaps you can explain.
 
S

sniper

Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Square-pedaller said:
I don't understand the point you're making in your last sentence. Perhaps you can explain.
Click to expand...

nocontest was saying that if ever Wiggins were to test positive, he'd have no other option but to continue lying like a sack of ****. He'd do it the LA-way, all the way through to the bitter end.
 
S

Square-pedaller

Apr 8, 2010
329
0
0
sniper said:
nocontest was saying that if ever Wiggins were to test positive, he'd have no other option but to continue lying like a sack of ****. He'd do it the LA-way, all the way through to the bitter end.
Click to expand...

I accept what you're saying, but not that that's what nocontest was trying to say. - But they can undoubtedly put me out of my misery.
 
badboygolf16v

badboygolf16v

Apr 17, 2009
308
0
0
Nocontest said:
Also if you check out the responses to his article, positive comments outweigh negative about 200/1. Don't mistake the forum as being representative of the 'fans' you are concerned about.
Click to expand...

Your point is exactly what? I'm sure the proportion of Lance naysayers was similar to the credulous. Generally the same people lovin Brad as loved Lance in my own experience.
 
U

UlleGigo

May 23, 2010
516
0
0
Nocontest said:
If they were team doping, why would they line themselves up for the inevitable scrutiny they are currently facing by being so obviously dominant? I would be the last thing they would do in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah. The prudent thing to do would be to dope and then not try to win. Rookie error by Sky there. :rolleyes:
 
S

Signor Pococurante

Jul 10, 2012
5
0
0
It's very telling that any fresh challenge to the historical orthodoxy of European cycling can only be viewed on this forum through a prism of disgust and indignation has been generated by the conduct of the US postal team. Read what Wiggins has to say in his column, comrades.
 
rhubroma

rhubroma

Apr 2, 2009
8,660
16
17,510
Signor Pococurante said:
It's very telling that any fresh challenge to the historical orthodoxy of European cycling can only be viewed on this forum through a prism of disgust and indignation has been generated by the conduct of the US postal team. Read what Wiggins has to say in his column, comrades.
Click to expand...

Post it then comrade.
 
S

Signor Pococurante

Jul 10, 2012
5
0
0
Ah sorry, I wasn't quite sure whether the all ****ing ****ers in the Sky thread were the same as the ****ing ****ers who were ****-fighting in the clinic. As long as eveyone's read the article now then I'm happy. ****s.
 
Zam_Olyas

Zam_Olyas

Sep 30, 2011
9,560
9
17,495
Signor Pococurante said:
Ah sorry, I wasn't quite sure whether the all ****ing ****ers in the Sky thread were the same as the ****ing ****ers who were ****-fighting in the clinic. As long as eveyone's read the article now then I'm happy. ****s.
Click to expand...

:D

"Women and children can afford to be careless, but not men" - vito. :D :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom