Wiggins, a man in love!

[will10]

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....

I agree wholesale.

 

[thehog]

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.

Wiggins is just one contradiction after another.

In 2009 when he dropped Lance you could see that he was saying to himself “my god this stuff works great!”

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Go check Kimmy's latest tweets.

I have, and.....what exactly?

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

Again, so what?
No-one is asking Brad to marry Paul - PKs a journalist, he asks questions, what has his personality got to do with it?
As PK said, Wiggins 2.0 appears to be avoid the message and attack the messenger.

 

[martinvickers]

I have, and.....what exactly?

from @paulkimmage : Interesting that Bradley Wiggins is still following the Lance Armstrong blueprint for success:

That's pretty un-subtle, Dr.

Again, so what?
No-one is asking Brad to marry Paul - PKs a journalist, he asks questions, what has his personality got to do with it?
As PK said, Wiggins 2.0 appears to be avoid the message and attack the messenger.

The 'so what' is blooming obvious Dr.

Wiggins doesn't like or trust Kimmage. and Vice versa. And they are both stubborn as mules. It's hardly masters psychology is it?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's pretty un-subtle, Dr.

Totally, but it is about how BW is following LAs blueprint, of attacking the messenger.

That's what makes PK suspicious - and quite frankly if it doesn't make you suspicious you have not been paying attention.

The 'so what' is blooming obvious Dr.

Wiggins doesn't like or trust Kimmage. and Vice versa. And they are both stubborn as mules. It's hardly masters psychology is it?

I agree that (at this stage) they don't like each other, yet again, so what?

 

[martinvickers]

Totally, but it is about how BW is following LAs blueprint, of attacking the messenger.

That's your interpretation, and that's fair enough. it may not be mine. more to the point, it may not be wiggins - his soundbites on newstalk suggest not

That's what makes PK suspicious - and quite frankly if it doesn't make you suspicious you have not been paying attention.

It makes me wary - i think it's stupid and self-defeating if wiggins is clean, and even if he's not. But i know enough about the human condition to recognise a p1ssing contest when i see one, too.

I agree that (at this stage) they don't like each other, yet again, so what?

I think it's been a bit longer than 'this stage' - the trouble has been brewing for years - i find it very strange, but it's clearly the reality.

And the so what is, when someone you don't much like to begin with starts saying they 'can't be sure' you're clean - and moves on pretty quickly to the suspect you aren't - your reaction is fairly naturally going to be - well, you can go f*** yourself. and that's the case whether wiggins is clean as a whistle, or dirty as a dockyard dame. and you don't tend to answer to people you think of like that.

ok, here comes the anecdote

I used to be very competitive in various areas of my life - and on one occasion, fairly important to me at the time (junior and televised finals) my...'honesty'...was questioned, on the basis that one of the judges had an indirect link to myself - it was ******** - but i can assure you I didn't 'explain' myself - i told the woman involved to "go f*** herself" - i think i may even have suggested useful manual aids to such an endeavour, and i did it in front of several producers and officials at the tender age of 17.

now if she was right - i would have done the same, quite likely. But she wasn't - she just didn't like us, and didn't trust us. and I was f***ed if i was going to give her the satisfaction of actually giving her the time of day - regardless how it made me look.

now multiply by many hundredsworth of importance, and ...well, i can see how this sort of thing works, that's all....

 

[thehog]

You’re an amazing person. Don’t let anyone tell you different.

 

[Jeremiah]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/jul/25/tour-de-france-2010-lance-armstrong

"I love him," Wiggins said. "I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense. Even his strongest critics have benefitted from him. I don't think this sport will ever realise what he's brought it or how big he's made it.

Back to the OP. For Wiggins to say this is just absurd. The subsequent comments he's made and the circumstances of Wiggins/Sky's dominance, their staff, and the explanations of the staff, are over the top ridiculous.

Odds are much better than even money that Wigans is jacked.

 

[the sceptic]

Isnt it the opposite of that analogy in the real world though? When innocent people get accused of cheating they do everything they can to prove them wrong, whereas the guilty gets ****ed that anyone dares to question them.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's your interpretation, and that's fair enough. it may not be mine. more to the point, it may not be wiggins - his soundbites on newstalk suggest not



It makes me wary - i think it's stupid and self-defeating if wiggins is clean, and even if he's not. But i know enough about the human condition to recognise a p1ssing contest when i see ....

Just a reminder of where this started......

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

Yet even you say you are wary?!

 

[Jeremiah]

Isnt it the opposite of that analogy in the real world though? When innocent people get accused of cheating they do everything they can to prove them wrong, whereas the guilty gets ****ed that anyone dares to question them.

The whole thing is just absurd. Wigans isn't smart enough to understand that people are going to be suspicious?


The guy is supposed to be a professional. Sit down with the biggest detractors, Kimmage and Walsh, for however long they want, and answer the questions respectfully.

First off, it's part of Wigans' job. Secondly, both of those guys have shown how serious and dedicated they are.

Basically, Wigans should be begging forgiveness from Kimmage. Short of that, he's a complete moron.

 

[martinvickers]

Just a reminder of where this started......


Yet even you say you are wary?!

Even me?

Why even me?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Even me?

Why even me?

Because you were the one to query PKs "suspicion" in the first place.

 

[martinvickers]

Because you were the one to query PKs "suspicion" in the first place.

I'm confused - how did i query the suspicion?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I'm confused - how did i query the suspicion?

Your earlier post - which I quoted already, but here it is again:

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

...

 

[thehog]

Very apt for the Sky fans.

We all start off as naïve fans, and progress to becoming a skeptic before hitting a fork in the road. At this fork there are currently two options: 1. Take the easy way out and become blind and oblivious, or 2. Become an extreme pessimist and say everyone is dirty. My hope is that we develop a third option, that being an awareness of doping as a problem, but not a broad condemnation to everyone who does something unfathomable.

http://running.competitor.com/2013/01/news/magness-my-interactions-with-lance-armstrong_64596

 

[blackcat]

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.

asking the wrong questions...

need to define the question. but first need to define the operation, the dynamics of sport.

if the anti-doping enforcement regime and myth, was always a house of cards, and just a shell front, what is your aim. sport is not the stage we were told it was. there is a conflict about juvenile sport and competition, to its evolution to a professional business. they have very few things in common. at the level of the european peloton, this is less the sport you were given an understanding of in formative years. but all of us still hold onto these delusions. This is a problem.

 

[blackcat]

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.

irony?

JV must stick to getting the technology so all those hematocrit readings are accurate and the GCMS assays are correct.

He could work with Floyd, and trust but verify's Dave Brower.

In cycling, there are no reticulocyte tests that one can trust. The readings are always skewiff <shaking head, cant believe there are no competent machines and technology>

 

[martinvickers]

Your earlier post - which I quoted already, but here it is again:

How on earth is that a 'query'?

 

[MatParker117]

Very apt for the Sky fans.



http://running.competitor.com/2013/01/news/magness-my-interactions-with-lance-armstrong_64596

I personally take that third view. I'm not going to tar anybody with the doping brush without strong evidence. But I'm not naive enough to think that PED's are not a problem.

 

[blackcat]

just tar cycling.

 

[The Hitch]

I personally take that third view. I'm not going to tar anybody with the doping brush without strong evidence. But I'm not naive enough to think that PED's are not a problem.

I have no idea why the hog posted that post here in the first place, but anyway (and im not saying this applies to you) but many people who would claim to go under the noble 3rd option are actually under the 1st. They choose to be blind and oblivious for their favorite riders, but are "aware of doping as a problem" - among riders i dont like.

 

[martinvickers]

I have no idea why the hog posted that post here in the first place, but anyway (and im not saying this applies to you) but many people who would claim to go under the noble 3rd option are actually under the 1st. They choose to be blind and oblivious for their favorite riders, but are "aware of doping as a problem" - among riders i dont like.

That's undeniably true - though it also works just as well the other way - assuming the worst of riders we don't like (see this thread!). I know i'm guilty of that, even as I try to look for evidence rather than just assume or accept opinion.

My favourite rider was Sean Kelly - for an irish kid growing up, it was as natural as breathing - and although i hate that he doped, and am fully aware he did - part of me still really liked the guy. and part of me was annoyed at myself for that.

The 'current' riders who **** me off worst are contador and valverde, though for different reasons* - and i know full well that i've given Kelly passes for things i will skin berti over.

But I try to stick to facts, and evidence, and reason - and if i occasionally fail, well next time I'll fail better. some of us do try the third way - but it can be hard in the face of other's certainty, often based on nothing much more than personal like.

As for Wiggins - i don't really like him, seems a *** - but I'm not certain that means doped. One thing I realised - just cause LA was a functioning sociopath AND a doper doesn't mean the two always correlate - dickheads can be clean, and nice guys can dope - and when they do, they're still cheats who need thrown out.

* nota; Berti is, i suspect a once in a generation talent, pretty nice humble guy personally, and wonderfully exciting to watch - and i can't really enjoy any of that cause he's a cheating bast*rd - and that's what ****es me off about him - being robbed of believing something amazing.

Valverde on the other hand is just my idea of a classic cynical doper. I cannot warm to him.

 

[thehog]

Packaged up neatly;

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-...gry-about-armstrong-hes-eaten-up-with-it-all/

Here’s Kimmage’s tweets, all sent in quick succession from 11am today

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

It is one year tomorrow since I lost my job at The Sunday Times…profitable work this anti-doping.

If I still had a job, I’d be camped outside the Sky training camp in Majorca and would not go away until Wiggins addressed the message…

…the hiring of Gert Leinders, and the sacking of four key members of staff since he won the Tour.

Coming soon: An interview (not Oprah) with the greatest bike rider I ever saw (not Armstrong).

Oh, last thing Bradley, if you would like to address those issues in an interview, I’d be more than happy to sit down with you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

How on earth is that a 'query'?

Start at the post I quoted work your way here - if you have a genuine question at the end of it I will answer.

I have no idea why the hog posted that post here in the first place, but anyway (and im not saying this applies to you) but many people who would claim to go under the noble 3rd option are actually under the 1st. They choose to be blind and oblivious for their favorite riders, but are "aware of doping as a problem" - among riders i dont like.

Well said.

And to be fair it is perfectly normal to be blinded by riders that we (think) we know or like. Thats because the fan gets to know about the personality, their family, their likes dislikes etc.
We often see it here that someone calls a rider a doper based on some personal criteria, but when its pointed out their own favourite would fail the same criteria you get a "yes, but...".