Wiggins, a man in love!

[SaxonUK]

And that's where your argument comes apart. Being duped into believing something that isn't true isn't acceptable. Something's pretty wrong with your moral compass when that example is able to be ignored.

You've never looked up to an athlete and wanted to be like them in their respective sport and then found unsavoury things about their character or their conduct in their chosen sport? Especially with riders such as these who are at the top of their profession, have achieved something, and then face the prospect that the inspiration for them being there could perhaps have been cheating in order to achieve what they had.

You're essentially arguing that if you applaud someone for their achievements, and then later find out their achievements were ill-gotten, then you are somehow a bad person...

 

[Jeremiah]

You've never looked up to an athlete and wanted to be like them in their respective sport and then found unsavoury things about their character or their conduct in their chosen sport? Especially with riders such as these who are at the top of their profession, have achieved something, and then face the prospect that the inspiration for them being there could perhaps have been cheating in order to achieve what they had.

You're essentially arguing that if you applaud someone for their achievements, and then later find out their achievements were ill-gotten, then you are somehow a bad person...

Well, if you do everything in your power to keep up a delusion, to yourself and others, you do have something the matter with you?

You disagree?

 

[roundabout]

You've never looked up to an athlete and wanted to be like them in their respective sport and then found unsavoury things about their character or their conduct in their chosen sport? Especially with riders such as these who are at the top of their profession, have achieved something, and then face the prospect that the inspiration for them being there could perhaps have been cheating in order to achieve what they had.

You're essentially arguing that if you applaud someone for their achievements, and then later find out their achievements were ill-gotten, then you are somehow a bad person...

You seem to be all over the place in your last 3 posts.

What would be inspiring about Armstrong after doping allegations? That he beat all the other dopers?

That he had a cameo in Dodgeball?

Why should a "clean" rider love Armstrong anyway? When I go back to the first page to read the quote, I think that Wiggins is trolling, but apparently he doesn't like when people wind him up so he must have been serious..

 

[SaxonUK]

Well, if you do everything in your power to keep up a delusion, to yourself and others, you do have something the matter with you?

You disagree?

Not if it is universally understood and proven without a shadow of a doubt. The whisperings of critics and the lack of any definitive proof that Lance Armstrong was doping for the years he was active in the peloton, I don't feel are enough to warrant someone changing their entire outlook on a rider, especially if they have been following their career for some time and have done their best to emulate them.

 

[SaxonUK]

You seem to be all over the place in your last 3 posts.

What would be inspiring about Armstrong after doping allegations? That he beat all the other dopers?

That he had a cameo in Dodgeball?

Why should a "clean" rider love Armstrong anyway? When I go back to the first page to read the quote, I think that Wiggins is trolling, but apparently he doesn't like when people wind him up so he must have been serious..

In what way am I all over the place? My argument has been the same throughout.

Lance Armstrong has not proven without a shadow of a doubt to have been doping during his professional cycling career, and that allegations alone should not be enough to anyone to change their entire perspective on a rider.

 

[roundabout]

Not if it is universally understood and proven without a shadow of a doubt. The whisperings of critics and the lack of any definitive proof that Lance Armstrong was doping for the years he was active in the peloton, I don't feel are enough to warrant someone changing their entire outlook on a rider, especially if they have been following their career for some time and have done their best to emulate them.

I am sorry, but that's just stupid. He is not a teenage girl with posters of Armstrong all over the room. He raced with people who knew what had to be done to be successful.

 

[Benotti69]

Not if it is universally understood and proven without a shadow of a doubt. The whisperings of critics and the lack of any definitive proof that Lance Armstrong was doping for the years he was active in the peloton, I don't feel are enough to warrant someone changing their entire outlook on a rider, especially if they have been following their career for some time and have done their best to emulate them.

I think you need to leave the clinic alone. You will if you read the clinic with an open mind find plenty of evidence of Armstrong's guilt. USADA certainly believe he is guilty. Why dont you?

Because Wiggin's has apparently has changed his opinion on him, so you follow Wiggins opinions? You are currently part of the F****g W*****s that Wiggins called the clinic.

 

[SaxonUK]

I think you need to leave the clinic alone. You will if you read the clinic with an open mind find plenty of evidence of Armstrong's guilt. USADA certainly believe he is guilty. Why dont you?

Because Wiggin's has apparently has changed his opinion on him, so you follow Wiggins opinions? You are currently part of the F****g W*****s that Wiggins called the clinic.

I've never said that I don't believe Armstrong has doped in his career, my own personal opinion is that he has, but without Armstrong being found guilty, there's nothing concrete. I admit that the timing of Wiggins comments so soon after the USADA allegations puts him in a poor light but the vast majority of posters in this thread seem to take his words as an admittance of doping or as support for doping. I maintain the belief that there are cyclists within the peloton that still admire Armstrong for what he has brought to the sport.

 

[roundabout]

In what way am I all over the place? My argument has been the same throughout.

Lance Armstrong has not proven without a shadow of a doubt to have been doping during his professional cycling career, and that allegations alone should not be enough to anyone to change their entire perspective on a rider.

Yeah right, Wiggins had questioned the integrity of the Tour in 2007 and yet he would need irrefutable proof that Armstrong was doping?

Try something that is closer to reality next time.

 

[SaxonUK]

Yeah right, Wiggins had questioned the integrity of the Tour in 2007 and yet he would need irrefutable proof that Armstrong was doping?

Try something that is closer to reality next time.

The comments about people not having faith of who is in yellow anymore? Yes, because those comments are still relevant now that he is in yellow...

 

[Benotti69]

I've never said that I don't believe Armstrong has doped in his career, my own personal opinion is that he has, but without Armstrong being found guilty, there's nothing concrete. I admit that the timing of Wiggins comments so soon after the USADA allegations puts him in a poor light but the vast majority of posters in this thread seem to take his words as an admittance of doping or as support for doping. I maintain the belief that there are cyclists within the peloton that still admire Armstrong for what he has brought to the sport.

Wiggins was initially out spoken against Armstrong,now instead of silence we get a PR job, why?

Why the turnaround? Why not silence? Why not talk about racing, how he feels and his goals and keep it to that?

The last 2 days of posts about Sky and Wiggins have all made valid points about what we are seeing and hearing it does not speak of a clean sport nor a team that professed it was going to be clean and transparent yet refused a reporter working for their sponsor (Kimmage at the Sunday Times) access all areas for a 3 week TdF, due to Wiggin's demands that he not be given acess.

Also Wiggin's attitude to people being cynical about his performances when he was cynical about other riders performances over the years smacks of hypocrisy, does it not?

Wiggins deserves criticism for his arrogance and hypocrisy alone in my eyes.

If he doesn't want the accusations of doping he could've had an open and transparent year. Did they invite the right type (a la Kimamge etc) of Journalists to Tenerife? Did they invite Ashenden to look at all their blood values for the year, expensive but Sky can afford it as being clean would be worth it no?

Did they give reasons for working with Doctors with a dodgy past?

Do they not realise the comparisons with USPS when they have so many riders up in the top 10 or 15? If they did what are they doing to allay any accusations of doping? Calling people names (F***** W*******) thats what.

So when we start to look at these things and lots of others together mentioned in the various related threads it does not look very transparent nor does it look very clean. It builds a picture of a team doing something all the other doping teams have done in the past.

Which begs the question? What power does TeamSky have to beat of these accusations, oh yeah they are sponsored by one of the most powerful media companies in the world!

So from here it looks like it will be arise Sir Bradley Wiggins and Sir Brailsford etc in the new years honours list if the next 2 weeks goes as planned. The Olympics will definitely go as planned.

 

[The Hitch]

I don't see the issue with Wiggins saying that he applauds what Armstrong brought to the sport. The doping allegations, while tarnishing his reputation, don't take into account the fact that to many young riders Lance Armstrong was an inspiration, and continues to be.

Saying that his critics have benefited from them is the big fu in what he said.

Armstrong spat bullied and sued his critics.

 

[meat puppet]

I tend to think that epistemology is advancing not with marginal gains but giant leaps as the Lance/Wiggo folks post here. Journos too, of course.

Good stuff. Since Adorno things have been stale anyway.

 

[Walkman]

Saying that his critics have benefited from them is the big fu in what he said.

Armstrong spat bullied and sued his critics.

Yeah, everybody has sure benefitted from Lance!

Epic facepalm. Sometimes silence is golden.

 

[Zarvinov]

not if it is universally understood and proven without a shadow of a doubt. The whisperings of critics and the lack of any definitive proof that lance armstrong was doping for the years he was active in the peloton, i don't feel are enough to warrant someone changing their entire outlook on a rider, especially if they have been following their career for some time and have done their best to emulate them.

There is absolutely no doubt. I emphatically state that Lance Armstrong used performance enhancing drugs during his career. That is a fact. Full stop. I assure you.

What he achieved and the manner in which he achieved his victories. Especially his seven consecutive Tour de France victories. Are far beyond the natural capabilities of any human individual. I cannot emphasize that point enough.

What many people do not understand fully is. The Tour de France (+ cycling in general) places extraordinary physical and psychological demands on the body and mind. It needs to be experienced first hand by the common individual in order for them to be able to comprehend fully the massive suffering that is endured.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Wigan's response to clinic types accusing him of doping seems very similar to Armstrong's response to USADA accusing him of doping.

 

[Anonymous]

Getting to be pretty easy to root against Wigans.

I miss AC. Never thought I'd say that.

 

[Orvieto]

Mr. Wiggins

If you are reading this thread, you may have seen my comments the the effect that the tactics that sky employed on July 7th's TDF stage have only ever worked for teams that were systematically doping. I do not know if you and your Sky team mates are doping. I have no proof that you are doping only profound scepticism engendered by many years of watching this sport.
I gather that you take exception to comments such as mine, since I hide behind the anonymity of the internet. If you would like to discuss further in person, feel free to PM me and we can converse personally. I can promise that I will refrain from any gynecomorphic epithets. I hope you can practice the same restraint.
If your athletic performances have been achieved without the benefit of performance enhancing drugs, I truly feel for you, because you have been denied the universal accolades that such achievements generally gain. For this, you need thank your predecessors and colleagues, the clients of Fuentes and of Ferrari, the ones who sullied the yellow jersey.
If you were truly brave, it would be those riders, doctors and DSs who you'd be insulting in tomorrow's press conference. I look forward to you taking such a brave stand.

Sincerely
A bone idle anonymous internet critic

 

[mksndz]

I tend to think that epistemology is advancing not with marginal gains but giant leaps as the Lance/Wiggo folks post here. Journos too, of course.

Good stuff. Since Adorno things have been stale anyway.

Everyone loves good polemic.

"Only one thing is certain, the irrationality of society has reached a point where only the gloomiest predications have any plausibility." - Horkheimer

 

[Mr.DNA]

Everyone loves good polemic.

"The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught." H.L.Mencken

 

[trompe le monde]

I find Wiggins pretty hilarious. Wiggins, a Janus faced former groupetto enthusiast, essentially wants people to believe that he was a caterpillar at Garmin that only required the cocoon of Team Sky (and its cocktails) to exit into the peloton and climb with some of the best cycling has to offer. And yet to raise an ounce of suspicion at this achievement makes any critic a moron, or even worse.

Questions of doping aside, what bothers me most about Wiggins is the sense of entitlement he has. That just because he believes he is an excellent cyclist he thinks others should essentially follow suit and think likewise, like a bunch of lobotomized, half-wit lemmings. How much reality does Wiggins want fans to suspend in order to actually make himself believable?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

I tend to think that epistemology is advancing not with marginal gains but giant leaps as the Lance/Wiggo folks post here. Journos too, of course.

Good stuff. Since Adorno things have been stale anyway.

Yea...I don't know what that means...

 

[Anonymous]

I find Wiggins pretty hilarious. Wiggins, a Janus faced former groupetto enthusiast, essentially wants people to believe that he was a caterpillar at Garmin that only required the cocoon of Team Sky (and its cocktails) to exit into the peloton and climb with some of the best cycling has to offer. And yet to raise an ounce of suspicion at this achievement makes any critic a moron, or even worse.

Questions of doping aside, what bothers me most about Wiggins is the sense of entitlement he has. That just because he believes he is an excellent cyclist he thinks others should essentially follow suit and think likewise, like a bunch of lobotomized, half-wit lemmings. How much reality does Wiggins want fans to suspend in order to actually make himself believable?

Exactly. Seems as if he's going for the Lance fan base.

Everybody's seen this movie before.

 

[ggusta]

Maybe. But it looks to me like the typical charade perfected by Wigan's old teammate, David Millar. Yeah, he is adamantly anti-dope but he does not have a problem racing against dopers. In fact, someone like Landis, who comes forward to reveal doping by the riders Millar is racing against, is "disgusting."

+1. Wiggins and Millar's 'technique' in addressing the doping issue and Armstrong have eerie similarities. It's like the same PR person is coaching them.

 

[Galic Ho]

I find Wiggins pretty hilarious. Wiggins, a Janus faced former groupetto enthusiast, essentially wants people to believe that he was a caterpillar at Garmin that only required the cocoon of Team Sky (and its cocktails) to exit into the peloton and climb with some of the best cycling has to offer. And yet to raise an ounce of suspicion at this achievement makes any critic a moron, or even worse.

Questions of doping aside, what bothers me most about Wiggins is the sense of entitlement he has. That just because he believes he is an excellent cyclist he thinks others should essentially follow suit and think likewise, like a bunch of lobotomized, half-wit lemmings. How much reality does Wiggins want fans to suspend in order to actually make himself believable?

I hope for Garmin's sake, Vaughters didn't talk to USADA. If he did, some serious questions should arise concerning Wiggins time there in 2009.

I've thought for a long time now that Wiggins has an over elevated sense of self entitlement and arrogant superiority to others. If he played his cards like AC, he'd come off better. But no, he copies LA. The similarities between the two are staggering. You and Scott SoCal have put it blunty and accurately labelled his attitude.