Wiggins, a man in love!

[ebandit]

my my

He's such a disappointment.

bad brad.................................bad!

if brad is found to have doped..............then vent your spleen

a bit hard to expect brad to be the moral saviour of cycling

 

[ultimobici]

And Robert Miller.

Who's that??

 

[thehog]

Who's that??

Apologies.

Roberta.

 

[Benotti69]

I also said he was correct to say what he did, and I can see why he singled them out, but don't let the words I wrote and you quoted get in the way of you banging the same old tired drum.

You should get out of the Sky threads and check out the rest of the forum. Would do you some good.

 

[JimmyFingers]

You should get out of the Sky threads and check out the rest of the forum. Would do you some good.

You should get out of the forum and into the real world. Might do you some good...although I doubt it

 

[thehog]

This is not about doping or whether Sky are doping or not.

This is about clean cycling and the promotion clean sport.

It’s one thing to say you’re clean but to still sit on the fence in regards to the biggest cheat in the history of the sport demonstrates his conflict and adoration for a person he still looks up to.

Wiggins needs to be brave and stand up for a clean sport.

He is only compounding the “horrors” of the past by his statements.

He's such a disappointment.

Apparently we’re living in “a new era” but the rhetoric is the same. The omerta is the same. Nothing has changed.

It indeed is very sad for cycling.

 

[ultimobici]

Apologies.

Roberta.

Huh? I was referring to the surname, not making cheap jibes about The Daily Fascist's jibes about Millar's private life.

 

[thehog]

Huh? I was referring to the surname, not making cheap jibes about The Daily Fascist's jibes about Millar's private life.

Gawd. Touchy. Get out on the wrong side of bed?

 

[ebandit]

praise

Apparently we’re living in “a new era” but the rhetoric is the same. The omerta is the same. Nothing has changed.

It indeed is very sad for cycling.

so the self serving enablers continue ........praising themselves..........

.................really sad

 

[martinvickers]

you accuse Kimmage of singling out Wiggins and Sky yet we only find you in the same Sky related threads.

Play the ball, not the man, B.

 

[martinvickers]

so the self serving enablers continue ........praising themselves..........

.................really sad

Ebandit

Honestly, I can't rate the ignore function highly enough - if you feel certain lines of discussion are fruitless, it seriously improves the forum experience....

ED : you are not on my ignore list, E!!

 

[martinvickers]

You should get out of the forum and into the real world. Might do you some good...although I doubt it

Guys, guys. Come on, there's some good meat to be chewing at today, we don't need to nibble at each other do we?

And no, of course i'm not a mod! It's just a friendly suggestion.

 

[Jeremiah]

This is not about doping or whether Sky are doping or not.

This is about clean cycling and the promotion clean sport.

It’s one thing to say you’re clean but to still sit on the fence in regards to the biggest cheat in the history of the sport demonstrates his conflict and adoration for a person he still looks up to.

Wiggins needs to be brave and stand up for a clean sport.

He is only compounding the “horrors” of the past by his statements.

He's such a disappointment.

Apparently we’re living in “a new era” but the rhetoric is the same. The omerta is the same. Nothing has changed.

It indeed is very sad for cycling.

You need to re read your contributions to the 'JV's spine' thread..

There were a couple of posters there writing about the need for absolute transparency and truth. You wanted to shut it down as "slander."

JV tweeted this on January 3rd, 2013..

Jonathan Vaughters ‏@Vaughters
@bikejourno This kind of drip, drip, drop story will keep surfacing, for years, if we don't just get this out, all at once. Truth.

 

[thehog]

PK hot on the return of serve.


@PaulKimmage: Interesting that Bradley Wiggins is still following the Lance Armstrong blueprint for success: 1 Ignore the message 2 Attack the messenger

 

[Benotti69]

Paul Kimmage ‏@PaulKimmage

Interesting that Bradley Wiggins is still following the Lance Armstrong blueprint for success: 1 Ignore the message 2 Attack the messenger

If I still had a job, I'd be camped outside the Sky training camp in Majorca and would not go away until Wiggins adressed the message the hiring of Gert Leinders, and the sacking of four key members of staff since he won the Tour.

Kimmage didn't believe in Armstrong in 99 either

http://www.independent.ie/sport/reserving-the-right-to-applaud-403806.html

 

[martinvickers]

Kimmage didn't believe in Armstrong in 99 either

http://www.independent.ie/sport/reserving-the-right-to-applaud-403806.html

I don't know if Kimmage is right, or wrong, about his suspicions about Wiggins. none of us here do, if we are honest.

But Kimmage has a very good track record in the industry, and ...let's put it this way...Wiggins would be well advised to put his stubborness aside (we all nkow the stubbornnes of both men is part of this) and 'get in front of the story' by sitting down with Paul for a few hours, answering every question Paul fires and hammering it all out.

First of all, it would mean wiggins did something lance was never prepared to do. Secondly as with Brailsford and Walsh, even an attempt to explain will win some people back, and three, if he's clean, it would just be a good idea to get Paul off his back -because Paul ain't going away any time soon....

 

[Benotti69]

I don't know if Kimmage is right, or wrong, about his suspicions about Wiggins. none of us here do, if we are honest.

But Kimmage has a very good track record in the industry, and ...let's put it this way...Wiggins would be well advised to put his stubborness aside (we all nkow the stubbornnes of both men is part of this) and 'get in front of the story' by sitting down with Paul for a few hours, answering every question Paul fires and hammering it all out.

First of all, it would mean wiggins did something lance was never prepared to do. Secondly as with Brailsford and Walsh, even an attempt to explain will win some people back, and three, if he's clean, it would just be a good idea to get Paul off his back -because Paul ain't going away any time soon....

Wiggins cant lie like Armstrong. Wiggins would crack especailly after spouting off about the dopers in 2006. Wiggins also does not have that 'win at all costs' mentality that enables the lies to flow while giving nothing away as that mentality see it all as part of the winning. If he did have that mentality he would have been doping long ago.

Wiggins doped. No question.

 

[martinvickers]

Wiggins cant lie like Armstrong. Wiggins would crack especailly after spouting off about the dopers in 2006. Wiggins also does not have that 'win at all costs' mentality that enables the lies to flow while giving nothing away as that mentality see it all as part of the winning. If he did have that mentality he would have been doping long ago.

Wiggins doped. No question.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. we all have them....

 

[Benotti69]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, of course. we all have them....

It is the only explanation. If you examine where Wiggins came from his transformation as a rider, his ranting at dopers, his refusal to now condemn dopers, his refusal to talk to guys like Kimmage his love of a guy like Armstrong etc......in this sport it means 1 thing and 1 thing only.

Remember very view test positive unless they are stupid.

 

[martinvickers]

It is the only explanation.

Well, that's patently not true. It's the explanation you prefer, no more, no less.

If you examine where Wiggins came from his transformation as a rider, his ranting at dopers, his refusal to now condemn dopers

If you see his GQ interview, he's pretty condemnatory of the whole generation, never mind Armstrong. But we all see what we want to, I suppose.

his refusal to talk to guys like Kimmage

I think we've discussed this.

his love of a guy like Armstrong etc......in this sport it means 1 thing and 1 thing only.

Well, as I said, you are entitled to your opinion.

Remember very view test positive unless they are stupid.

I don't disagree - but absence of evidence is not proof either.

 

[Benotti69]

Well, that's patently not true. It's the explanation you prefer, no more, no less.

All other explanations sound like PR and worse Sky PR.

If you see his GQ interview, he's pretty condemnatory of the whole generation, never mind Armstrong. But we all see what we want to, I suppose.

He is part of the Armstrong generation. He finished close to him in a TDF. See, I dont See Wiggins as part of a new clean generation. Wiggins started racing as a pro 2001. Armstrong was doping his way to TdF #3 then.

I don't disagree - but absence of evidence is not proof either.

That argument was used over and over by Armstrongs minions. No positive blah blah blah.

Wiggins worked with Leinders. Proof of doping.
Armstrong worked with Ferarri. Proof of doping, for LeMond, Walsh and others.

I dont see any absence of evidence.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't know if Kimmage is right, or wrong, about his suspicions about Wiggins. none of us here do, if we are honest.

Hold on.
Kimmage has never said he is suspicious as you imply - when asked he has repeated "I don't know".
What Wiggins has done and said recently is suspicious - Kimmage, quite rightly has questioned why Wiggins reacts the way he does.

But Kimmage has a very good track record in the industry, and ...let's put it this way...Wiggins would be well advised to put his stubborness aside (we all nkow the stubbornnes of both men is part of this) and 'get in front of the story' by sitting down with Paul for a few hours, answering every question Paul fires and hammering it all out.

First of all, it would mean wiggins did something lance was never prepared to do. Secondly as with Brailsford and Walsh, even an attempt to explain will win some people back, and three, if he's clean, it would just be a good idea to get Paul off his back -because Paul ain't going away any time soon....

Why would Wiggins need to be stubborn on this issue?
He has made some pretty angry outbursts - so if he is upset with doping and being associated with it, why would one be stubborn about it?
Does not make sense.

 

[martinvickers]

Hold on.
Kimmage has never said he is suspicious as you imply - when asked he has repeated "I don't know".
What Wiggins has done and said recently is suspicious - Kimmage, quite rightly has questioned why Wiggins reacts the way he does.

Go check Kimmy's latest tweets.

Why would Wiggins need to be stubborn on this issue?

I'm not suggesting he's stubborn on the issue - he's stubborn, it seems, on the man.

 

[martinvickers]

All other explanations sound like PR and worse Sky PR.

Again, your opinion, to which you're entitled...

He is part of the Armstrong generation. He finished close to him in a TDF. See, I dont See Wiggins as part of a new clean generation. Wiggins started racing as a pro 2001. Armstrong was doping his way to TdF #3 then.

Sorry, but it's a huge stretch to say they are of 'one generation' - they overlap, that's about the height of it.

That argument was used over and over by Armstrongs minions. No positive blah blah blah.

Am I an Armstrong minion, now? Do we get health cover?

Wiggins worked with Leinders. Proof of doping.

Nope, don't buy that, sorry - not nearly conclusive enough to be considered proof.

Armstrong worked with Ferarri. Proof of doping, for LeMond, Walsh and others.

I dont see any absence of evidence.

You can't see an absence, no-one can see an absence - by it's nature, it's not there to see....

 

[the sceptic]

Remember when Wiggo dropped his hero Lance on Verbier in 2009? what a day that was. Imagine if Wiggo had known about marginal gains back then, he could have beaten Contador too.