Wiggins, a man in love!

[argyllflyer]

Don't get any connection to Kimmage in what BW said - he mentioned Kimmage in connection with his recent attack on BW and Sky.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage-unconvinced-by-sky-and-wiggins

Medieval witchhunts caught witches (as Armstrong etc were eventually undone) but many innocent were falsely accused. I'd say any irritation BW has with Kimmage is more related to that. No one has a shred of evidence that Sky are doping. Alex Dowsett is quoted in this months Cycle Sport magazine talking about the differences between Sky and Movistar - he asked about the Movistar winter camp only to be told that there wasn't one as they expected all riders to turn up fit for the new season as they all lived in warm climates and could train themselves! Until all 18 World Tour teams prepare (in the literal rather than figurative sense) for races professionally, Sky's approach will continue to pay off. Dowsett did say the Movistar bus is better though... marginal gains...

 

[Ferminal]

Kinda like an altered version of Stockholm syndrome?

Think it's more about doing what you have to do. Though no doubt Wiggins built relationships with people he knew to be dopers and realised that doper =/= bad person and came to understand the culture at the top of the sport more.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

In 2007 he was talking about something he had no experience in.

In 2009 he was riding in a team full of dopers, riding up mountains alongside dopers... it's hard to maintain the same convictions in that environment.

another precise comment.

 

[Maxiton]

Think it's more about doing what you have to do. Though no doubt Wiggins built relationships with people he knew to be dopers and realised that doper =/= bad person and came to understand the culture at the top of the sport more.

Being at the top, he would understand it.

"Listening to that, that is an eye-opener, what we just heard there. That's some pretty surprising one minute of audio, what we just heard there."

Translation: Wiggans put himself firmly in the dopers' camp with his statement.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Havent you heard the latest explaination?

It goes something like this. - Who knows why Wiggins says what he says. Its a tortured thought process or something. But dont you dare try and take any meaning from what Wiggins says. Who are you to take Wiggins at his word?

He doesn't mean any of it. Well not the bad stuff anyway.

I think that's a reasonable summary, though I think it was intended as a p*ss-take!

Wiggo says what he says. Why he says it and what he really means are most definitely unclear. Only Wiggo knows what he was trying to say and only he knows if what he said was what he actually intended.

Drawing conclusions from what Wiggo says is there a highly subjective process. It's also a waste of time, as he's under no obligation to be truthful, consistent or even meaningful.

Clinic folk are obviously free to draw whatever conclusions they like, though and it's no surprise that these conclusions are entirely consistent with their previously expressed views on Wiggo's character and doping practices.

FWIW, I think he should keep his mouth shut, though the responses here to what he says are a good source of entertainment in the bleak winter months.

 

[sniper]

splendid comments on Wiggins in that Newstalk fragment.
("an eyeopener" indeed)

 

[hrotha]

So Wiggins's mind is so arcane and mysterious that when he says he loves Lance because he's done a lot of good for the sport we can't even begin to comprehend what he means, and attempting to make sense of it is folly. Got it.

 

[Benotti69]

Not in relation to Kimmage he doesn't, just about 'lots of people'. It's the presenters who link it to Kimmage specifically.

And he's right. There are lots of people who are bitter about Armstrong. They'll tell you that themselves.

But you dont find it strange that Wiggins who was extremely bitter in 2006 and ranting about the real heroes in the autobus (TdF 2006) is not bitter at this guy who doped while Wiggins was suffering during races because the dopers could go much faster.

Wiggin's seems to have done a 180°. Must the be the dope.

 

[Robert21]

I think that the bottom line is that Wiggins has, for whatever reason, made it plain that he is unhappy both about Armstrong been busted and people continuing to highlight the problem of doping, which the sport doubtlessly still has. Given that the 'old' Wiggins would have undoubtedly been shouting his approval from the rooftops, then the question is, 'why the change of attitude?.

Now what did Wiggins say back in 2007?

Contador is going to be a worthy winner because he hasn't failed any tests but unfortunately now the suspicion is out there that you can't win the Tour de France unless you're doing something. That's unfortunate if he is clean but at the same time you can't blame people for the doubt that's there.

It's going to be difficult and you can't blame people for doubting the credibility of the Tour for perhaps the next 5,6,7 years

It's difficult but hopefully these guys will get life bans - Vinokourov - hopefully we'll never see him back in the sport which is encouraging for me really. These guys are looked upon as heroes to some young guys - but for me they're not the heroes of the Tour de France - they never were for me. I spent a lot of time in the group finishing an hour down most days and that's where the heroes are for me.

I think they need to take a long look at who they invite to the race over the next few years. If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is involved in any way in a drugs ring or doping or working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France - as simple as that - they shouldn't even be given a racing licence until they can prove that they are, through stringent testing procedures, that they are not involved in any wrong doing - until then the ASO shouldn't have them in the Tour de France and the UCI should not have them in the sport.

And how did Wiggins see his future back then?

Hopefully in 2 years time when I return to the Tour I might be the Prologue winner or I might win the Time Trial and be a credible Time Trial winner because I haven't beated someone by 2 minutes. Credible, clean riders are what's gonna be the future of the sport.

If nothing is done now and this thing continues and we get to next year and there's yet more scandal I can only sit here and do so many press conferences and try and protect the credibility of the sport and say everything is gonna be alright for so long before people start saying, 'We've heard this one before.'

The riders have got to take a stand too as a group. If it almost means that we're sitting on the start line at the next race in a month's time saying, 'Look, we're not riding with this guy' and put him at the back of the field or not start the race if there's any suspicion on this guy - if that's what it's gonna take then that's what it's gonna take.

Then again he was also well aware of the potential cost of sticking to one's principals...

If you compare it to something like the Olympic Games, the financial rewards of the Olympic Games are peanuts to winning something like the Tour de France. If you win something like the Tour de France you are almost guaranteed for 3 years to be on a E1,000,000 contract - that's quite attractive and lucrative to some people to take the risks they do.

People's lives are at stake here, people's jobs and things like that. I'm at the end of my contract with Cofidis coming to negotiate, next year for example with Cofidis, I'd asked for a figure for example off my team manager. And he said, 'You didn't win the Prologue and you were fifth in the time trial,' and I'm like, 'But I'm clean, would you rather I take risks and win the prologue and win that time trial and not get caught and then would you be paying me the million Euro contract for next year?' So there's all these things that go into account you know, that was all ****ing me off to be honest.

 

[The Hitch]

Creating wild excuses because you are a fan of a rider. Meet our good friend common sense.

I think that's a reasonable summary, though I think it was intended as a p*ss-take!

Wiggo says what he says. Why he says it and what he really means are most definitely unclear. Only Wiggo knows what he was trying to say and only he knows if what he said was what he actually intended.

Drawing conclusions from what Wiggo says is there a highly subjective process. It's also a waste of time, as he's under no obligation to be truthful, consistent or even meaningful.

Clinic folk are obviously free to draw whatever conclusions they like, though and it's no surprise that these conclusions are entirely consistent with their previously expressed views on Wiggo's character and doping practices.

FWIW, I think he should keep his mouth shut, though the responses here to what he says are a good source of entertainment in the bleak winter months.

So Wiggins's mind is so arcane and mysterious that when he says he loves Lance because he's done a lot of good for the sport we can't even begin to comprehend what he means, and attempting to make sense of it is folly. Got it.

 

[veganrob]

box of rocks

Well, that could be what they are trying to make us believe.

The alternative is Wiggo is just dumb as a box of rocks. Which could explain above.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Creating wild excuses because you are a fan of a rider. Meet our good friend common sense.

I think it's the common sense approach to basically ignore what Wiggins says as opposed to trying to deduce anything conclusive from what he says.

This is my view about most sportsmen,to be honest, whether I'm a fan or not. Just because they are good at turning pedals, kicking a ball, running round a track etc. does not mean that they are going to be worth listening to or that they will make sense.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Well, that could be what they are trying to make us believe.

The alternative is Wiggo is just dumb as a box of rocks. Which could explain above.

One more lie for Vaughters then?

http://video.ezinemark.com/garmin-s-jonathan-vaughters-on-bradley-wiggins-departure-43290977cf4.html

Or does "intellectually gifted" mean something different to "intelligent"?

And check the tone, words used and body language of someone who just lost their best ever GC rider and is expressing the disappointment at that loss.

 

[RownhamHill]

It's an odd piece from Wiggins, right enough. Sort of half understanding and empathetic, half sneering of anti-doping advocates - he seems to understand their anger, but have contempt for it at the same time. One or the other i could understand, (the former anti-foping, the later pro-omerta)but both? odd indeed.

This is a great comment, but I don't think it's that odd that someone could hold these two positions simultaneously. I love reading the Clinic, and I love the way - for example - it has maybe played a part in exposing the Armstrong myth. But do I love every Clinic poster's style, or think they are all worthy of my utmost admiration? Probably not. As I think Dr Maserati often likes to point out, 'The Clinc' isn't a single being that speaks with one voice, but a combination of many different ones - and within that for everybody there will be some voices you like better than others.

Apply that to the even bigger group of 'anti-doping advocates' - all individuals, all with different tone of voices, bias and their own agendas - and it's clear that while you can admire the general direction of travel you could hold some parts of the 'movement' in less high-esteem - all the way over to contempt. This isn't surprising, but just the shades of grey you get in real life.

So for example:

Wiggins specifically mentions 'what Kimmage said last week about me and the team' - which can only mean the interview in the German paper - If we didn't know it already, it seems pretty clear that Wiggins dislike of Kimmage runs very deep and pretty personal, and I doubt that kimmy's 'accusations' in the German press helped matters. Wiggins is pretty much saying 'these people' are so angry about armstrong, that they are accusing everybody, in Kimmage's case me included - and it's the me included bit seems to set him off.

I've not seen the 'accusations', but presumably this is Kimmage saying something along the lines of Wiggins' and Sky's win looks too good to be true? So, if someone you already didn't like, basically accuses you in public of cheating at your chosen profession, do you think that might set you off? Or do you think that might lead you to a certain level of contempt for someone, despite any feelings of admiration/sympathy you might have for other bits of their work?

I'm just very curious as to the root of that animus.

But that it exists in both directions is as clear as day now.

Absolutely!

 

[thehog]

Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.

"I want you to believe that I'm clean but that guy Pablo Esocabar is a really good guy. I love him. Everyone has benefited from him in some way or another".

 

[veganrob]

One more lie for Vaughters then?

http://video.ezinemark.com/garmin-s-jonathan-vaughters-on-bradley-wiggins-departure-43290977cf4.html

Or does "intellectually gifted" mean something different to "intelligent"?

And check the tone, words used and body language of someone who just lost their best ever GC rider and is expressing the disappointment at that loss.

Or we could be kind and call it "diplomatic". lol

 

[JimmyFingers]

I've not seen the 'accusations', but presumably this is Kimmage saying something along the lines of Wiggins' and Sky's win looks too good to be true? So, if someone you already didn't like, basically accuses you in public of cheating at your chosen profession, do you think that might set you off? Or do you think that might lead you to a certain level of contempt for someone, despite any feelings of admiration/sympathy you might have for other bits of their work?

There does seem to be some bad blood between Wiggins and Kimmage, possibly dating back to his vetoing Kimmage embedding with Sky in 2010 for the first week of the Tour. Kimmage's accusatgion essentially mimiced many here about Sky, focussing on Leinders and the domination they acheived in 2012 and that it was hard to believe.

While Kimmage was correct to say what he did, he did seem to single out Wiggins and Sky, when plenty of performances last year should arouse suspicion and OPQS won as many races. That said I can see why they would be the main talking point even in Germany. But it was certain to annoy Sky and Wiggins, in what was said and the manner of it. It was certainly the explicit insinuation of cheating by Sky I have read in the press.

 

[martinvickers]

There does seem to be some bad blood between Wiggins and Kimmage, possibly dating back to his vetoing Kimmage embedding with Sky in 2010 for the first week of the Tour. Kimmage's accusatgion essentially mimiced many here about Sky, focussing on Leinders and the domination they acheived in 2012 and that it was hard to believe.

While Kimmage was correct to say what he did, he did seem to single out Wiggins and Sky, when plenty of performances last year should arouse suspicion and OPQS won as many races. That said I can see why they would be the main talking point even in Germany. But it was certain to annoy Sky and Wiggins, in what was said and the manner of it. It was certainly the explicit insinuation of cheating by Sky I have read in the press.

I think its the double letter thing - WiGGins. KiMMAge. I mean, it's obvious. isn't it?

{/sarcasm}

 

[del1962]

There does seem to be some bad blood between Wiggins and Kimmage, possibly dating back to his vetoing Kimmage embedding with Sky in 2010 for the first week of the Tour. Kimmage's accusatgion essentially mimiced many here about Sky, focussing on Leinders and the domination they acheived in 2012 and that it was hard to believe.

While Kimmage was correct to say what he did, he did seem to single out Wiggins and Sky, when plenty of performances last year should arouse suspicion and OPQS won as many races. That said I can see why they would be the main talking point even in Germany. But it was certain to annoy Sky and Wiggins, in what was said and the manner of it. It was certainly the explicit insinuation of cheating by Sky I have read in the press.

I think Wiggins wasnt' happy with Kimmage due to an interview prior to Pharmstrong's comeback, when Kimmage tried to put words into Wigggins' mouth, which would have put Wiggins in a very difficult postion within the peleton.

 

[thehog]

I think it's the common sense approach to basically ignore what Wiggins says as opposed to trying to deduce anything conclusive from what he says.

This is my view about most sportsmen,to be honest, whether I'm a fan or not. Just because they are good at turning pedals, kicking a ball, running round a track etc. does not mean that they are going to be worth listening to or that they will make sense.

Of course. The man who is head of executing marginal gains and new found sport science techniques – makes no sense. You heard it first.

Wiggins is obviously uncomfortable. He still loves Lance and probably is in contact. He is a Lance template 2012 style. Lance was marginal gains version 1. Problem Wiggins has got is that Sky News keeps asking him for comment on Armstrong. So he has to make a statement. But he’s conflicted. He hates dopers. But doping is acceptable when it forms part of marginal gains. Armstrong like Wiggins was not a blatant doper. The doping formed part of a carefully thought out training routine and program. That’s not doping in Wiggins’s eyes. That’s a marginal gain.

It’s not a sad day for cycling because of Armstrong. It’s a sad day for cycling because the yellow jersey is not brave enough to stand up and change the sport.

 

[ultimobici]

But I will not read a blog by a nameless person or from someone called 'Big Chain Ring John 52'. That doesn't count.

Ha! Another lie! Of course he reads this $hit!

No1 the human body evolves, training evolves, we improve over time. Duh! Shocker. Two. The suits. The Technology - it's a huge advantage. No3 - the pool. That pool was clearly faster than my neighbourhood swimming pool. Phelps was clearly motivated and all of that stuff makes up for superhuman performances but no one says anything about that. If you go up L'Alpe d'Huez faster than anyone else then it's a case of clearly you've cheated. Another example - 1999 my climbing bike weighed 21 pounds. 2005 - 14 pounds.

Funny, I was selling OCLVs in 99, and they were never that heavy even in stock set up, let alone tricked out for climbing. I was riding a steel bike with 7700 and heavier wheels that was 19lb in 99, FFS!!

 

[ebandit]

good job hoggie

Of course. The man who is head of executing marginal gains and new found sport science techniques – makes no sense. You heard it first.

Wiggins is obviously uncomfortable. He still loves Lance and probably is in contact. He is a Lance template 2012 style. Lance was marginal gains version 1. Problem Wiggins has got is that Sky News keeps asking him for comment on Armstrong. So he has to make a statement. But he’s conflicted. He hates dopers. But doping is acceptable when it forms part of marginal gains. Armstrong like Wiggins was not a blatant doper. The doping formed part of a carefully thought out training routine and program. That’s not doping in Wiggins’s eyes. That’s a marginal gain.

It’s not a sad day for cycling because of Armstrong. It’s a sad day for cycling because the yellow jersey is not brave enough to stand up and change the sport.

good job hoggie!..............twist the words to fit your agenda......a sad day for the forum

the crap brad spurts has nothing to do with his cycling ability

you think brad still loves lance? that he is in touch? how about a little
proof?

you think that brad should HATE dopers? how often you have challenged
members...........'where did the hate come from?'

post again when you really know that team sky / brad are doping

 

[Benotti69]

There does seem to be some bad blood between Wiggins and Kimmage, possibly dating back to his vetoing Kimmage embedding with Sky in 2010 for the first week of the Tour. Kimmage's accusatgion essentially mimiced many here about Sky, focussing on Leinders and the domination they acheived in 2012 and that it was hard to believe.

While Kimmage was correct to say what he did, he did seem to single out Wiggins and Sky, when plenty of performances last year should arouse suspicion and OPQS won as many races. That said I can see why they would be the main talking point even in Germany. But it was certain to annoy Sky and Wiggins, in what was said and the manner of it. It was certainly the explicit insinuation of cheating by Sky I have read in the press.

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

 

[JimmyFingers]

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

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.

 

[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.