Wiggins, a man in love!

[Wallace and Gromit]

Of all your attempts to excuse Wiggins clearly idiotic support for Lance this is the most bizzare.

I'm not excusing anything. Just highlighting 2 things:

i) Whatever he said in the past, his recent statements have been decidely cool towards Lance

ii) Before the USADA report, irrespective of what anyone actually thought, expressing hostility to Lance was not a good idea. Wiggo may have loved him or he may only have been saying it. We don't know.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Actually I think Wiggins felt used by Kimmage in the past, if you read his book he feels Kimmage was trying to steer his answers in a certain direction, as if Brad was to be Kimmage's spokesman on LA prior to his comeback.

I have read some of Brads book - the only reference to kimmage is where he says that,(no mention of 2010!).
One would assume that Bradley would be able to back up any opinion he had, he is not 6.

I would like to know why Kimmage turned down the offer from Sky in 2010 though when Wiggins said he did not want him around at the start, but he could have been around a few days in, very odd from Kimmage.

What is the point in being allowed full access to a team for over 3 weeks - but don't come until 8 days in?

Kimmage felt he was being fobbed off, and he tested Brailsford by saying he would agree if allowed to talk with Michael Barry...... Brailsford declined.

 

[The Hitch]

Except this narrative would be largely the same had Wiggins continued those tirades against dopers, except now those tirades would be interpreted as evidence of doping in the same way Sky's or Garmin's anti-doping talk is regarded as a smokescreen, a deceitful ploy. Point is, there are some here who take both A and not-A as evidence of Sky/Wiggins doping.

And some who take both A and A as evidence that he is clean.

But i dont get why this is directed at me. I never did take both A and A as evidence of Sky doping. I have actually joined with the sky fans in attacking some of the more extreme posters on many of their conspiracy theorists.

If you have a problem with people who take everything as evidence of doping conspiracy why not complain to them?

Why are all the complaints and whines (and ill admit they are legitimate) about what the hog or sniper or others say, constantly directed at me and other who do not have anything to do with them?

And the - oh but if wiggins hadnt praised lance people would still critiscse him, argument doesnt do much for me.

First of all because i am not one of those people.

Secondly because wiggins DID say those things about Lance. To take this line of reasoning a step or 2 further one could defend someone like vino with - oh even if he didnt get caught for blood doping and ride in the epo era and admit he doped, some people would still take that as evidence of doping.

Maybe if wiggins hadnt shown lance so much love people would be spinning it another way. But he DID say all those things and therefore we take what he said and base arguments on that.

 

[The Hitch]

ii) Before the USADA report, irrespective of what anyone actually thought, expressing hostility to Lance was not a good idea. Wiggo may have loved him or he may only have been saying it. We don't know.

So you are saying that people would not have wanted to get on Lances bad side by "expressing hostility to him"

I agree with you.

But what wiggins did was a long way from "not expressing hostility to Lance"

Saying that one loves Lance and putting him on your autobiography cover and all the other stuff, those are NOT a neutral position. Its going out of your way to show your love for him

Btw which other riders were doing that? if expressing ones love for Armstrong was neccesary why was Wiggins the only one (or one of very few anyway, and i dont recall anyone taking it as far as him). There are a good 400 riders out there who did a gt in the last few years who seemingly didnt feel they were risking their careers by not praising lance on every occasion.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Actually I think Wiggins felt used by Kimmage in the past, if you read his book he feels Kimmage was trying to steer his answers in a certain direction, as if Brad was to be Kimmage's spokesman on LA prior to his comeback.

I would like to know why Kimmage turned down the offer from Sky in 2010 though when Wiggins said he did not want him around at the start, but he could have been around a few days in, very odd from Kimmage.

Because if he's meant to be embedded to see how a clean team does things (refer back to his embedding at Garmin in 2008), it is counterproductive to have that team have several days without his presence where they can do what they like with impunity. Kimmage was fooled by Bernhard Kohl in 2008. He wasn't at Gerolsteiner, didn't know what Kohl was doing, but he was pleased with what he saw - only to find out he'd been duped. Can he, therefore, trust something that seems on the surface to be pretty good, if he hasn't seen it first hand? Sky, whether clean or dirty, could have been doing anything in those eight days before Kimmage arrived at the team. It then becomes selective, because why can he only see that part of the race with the team? He might ask himself.

To put it another way, if you take a government-sponsored tour of, say, Cuba... do you think you've been allowed to see everything there is to see?

 

[The Hitch]

Sky, whether clean or dirty, could have been doing anything in those eight days before Kimmage arrived at the team. It then becomes selective, because why can he only see that part of the race with the team? He might ask himself.

Slight digression, but - on that point, people in cycling and in all sports too often forget (or dont even know) that doping can take place in the off season before races.

What does Victor Conte always say about the 4th quarter. That the main doping under his instructions took place in Novermber to December. Months before the actual goal. But that was when the doping helped with the training, with the building of muscles, with the building of endurance, with the base for the rest of the season.

Personally I speculate that some of the people who dismiss doping allegations with - i dont dope, you should see how hard I train, can justify such comments, to themselves because they arent actually doping in the competition (which is what everyone expects) but merely took some drugs months before.

Of course even the East Germans didnt dope during the actual olympics. It was a 3 year programme but did not take place during the actual competition. They were under strict orders to stop doping 14 days before so that they would never have the substances in their blood to fail the tests.

Still won all the medals.

And if cycling is getting cleaner, then doping in the off season where you might get a few tests over a couple of months and can even miss 1, would be easier than doping in gt where you might get several tests in a week.

Riders can ride an entire gt on pan y agua. Doesnt mean they didnt dope.

Of course in other sports they dont even have proper out of competition testing.

 

[Ferminal]

Except this narrative would be largely the same had Wiggins continued those tirades against dopers, except now those tirades would be interpreted as evidence of doping in the same way Sky's or Garmin's anti-doping talk is regarded as a smokescreen, a deceitful ploy. Point is, there are some here who take both A and not-A as evidence of Sky/Wiggins doping. If Wiggins had come to some decision to dope, wouldn't it have made as much sense to keep up a strong anti-doping front? As for the overnight transformation, that's been discussed here in great depth with no consensus.

You can be "anti-doping" whilst still upholding Omerta, like Sky. 2007 Wiggins did not uphold Omerta, which is why it was an unsustainable position. 2012 Wiggins in 2007 voice, not possible.

Let's be clear here, any "anti-doping" talk which proliferates silence is not anti-doping talk.

 

[the sceptic]

I think Wiggins might be in love with Lance again

 

[ebandit]

another surprise

I'm looking forward to Lance's revenge on Wiggins this Thursday night.

I bet Lance has a list. Pay back all those who said bad things about him in the last 6 weeks.

but why? did it never happen...............................ah well?

no need to amend my sig to hoggie praise if i was wrong and hoggie

was correct

 

[ebandit]

don't think so

I think Wiggins might be in love with Lance again

don't think so..............after lance's interview poor lance is rather sort
on love

looks like your in love with the 'idea' of looking smart

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

But what wiggins did was a long way from "not expressing hostility to Lance"

Saying that one loves Lance and putting him on your autobiography cover and all the other stuff, those are NOT a neutral position. Its going out of your way to show your love for him

Btw which other riders were doing that?

I'm claiming no great insight into what Wiggo means.

He says an awful lot of stuff that needs to be carefully interpreted, even when seemingly a simple factual statement such as his comment about only having raced against Lance once. He also says a lot of things that are clearly untrue, such as the comment about the raffle being about to be drawn after the podium presentation in Paris. And he also says things that you rarely hear from other sportsmen such as advising fans not to drink too much (also in Paris) or advising that there's a free bar after the event (in his SPOTY speech).

Thus my conclusion that one should be unusually careful when trying to deduce the real meaning from comments made by Wiggo.

I would think the picture of Lance on his book was to attract attention. At the back end of 2009 when it was published, he was very low profile media-wise, whereas Lance was obviously a highly recognisable figure.

 

[Benotti69]

I
<snip>

I would think the picture of Lance on his book was to attract attention. At the back end of 2009 when it was published, he was very low profile media-wise, whereas Lance was obviously a highly recognisable figure.

This is the weakest excuse I have ever heard. Wiggins the great anti doper puts the biggest sporting fraud on the cover of his book to attract attention.

Well it has attracted attention alright, the wrong sort.

LeMond called out Armstrong ad the greatest sporting fraud in 2001 or 2002. Wiggins was part of the sport at that stage. If a former TdF winner calls a guy a doper good chance he knows what he is talking about. / years later he appears on the cover of your book after LA Cofindential is published.

Wiggins has gone to the dark side.

I hope the journalists start asking the right questions this year, about team doctors etc and not just Sky but all those showing 'unbelievable form'.

 

[MartinGT]

This is the weakest excuse I have ever heard. Wiggins the great anti doper puts the biggest sporting fraud on the cover of his book to attract attention.

Well it has attracted attention alright, the wrong sort.

LeMond called out Armstrong ad the greatest sporting fraud in 2001 or 2002. Wiggins was part of the sport at that stage. If a former TdF winner calls a guy a doper good chance he knows what he is talking about. / years later he appears on the cover of your book after LA Cofindential is published.

Wiggins has gone to the dark side.

I hope the journalists start asking the right questions this year, about team doctors etc and not just Sky but all those showing 'unbelievable form'.

You do realise Murdoch owns most of the Newspaper companies in the UK so taht aint going to happen.

Plus, the Bristish public calling the Great Brailsford and Wiggins cheaters? NO chance.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

I think Wiggins might be in love with Lance again

I don't think he was ever out of love with him.

 

[Cycle Chic]

but why? did it never happen...............................ah well?

no need to amend my sig to hoggie praise if i was wrong and hoggie

was correct

why.....do....your....posts.......always....

look like....this.................

????

annoying.

 

[Benotti69]

You do realise Murdoch owns most of the Newspaper companies in the UK so taht aint going to happen.

Plus, the Bristish public calling the Great Brailsford and Wiggins cheaters? NO chance.

Yes i am fully aware of Murdoch and how big his power of influence is.

Sky have managed to do what USPS did after Festina.

So many questions to be aked about their performance and no direct answers.

I hope Walsh, after his ego comes back down to earth (rightfully) after Armstrong, takes a much closer look at Sky. I want to see him ask the questions that Kimmage is asking.

I bet that ST wont let Walsh near cycling if they can help it.

 

[MartinGT]

Yes i am fully aware of Murdoch and how big his power of influence is.

Sky have managed to do what USPS did after Festina.

So many questions to be aked about their performance and no direct answers.

I hope Walsh, after his ego comes back down to earth (rightfully) after Armstrong, takes a much closer look at Sky. I want to see him ask the questions that Kimmage is asking.

I bet that ST wont let Walsh near cycling if they can help it.

Amen brother

 

[ebandit]

love is

why.....do....your....posts.......always....

look like....this.................

????

annoying.

is that what you imagine wiggo thinks?.................very insightful

it's a shame that members spend so much time on a point as lacking
in thought as 'wiggo...............'i love lance'

 

[JimmyFingers]

Amen brother

Weird, kind of agree as well. I think Wiggins has to engage properly with this debate, at this pivotal time for the sport. He is the current patron, it would be much healthier for him and the sport to tackle it head on. Perhaps not Kimmage, since they clearly don't like each other and I'm not sure an interview would be constructive, but certainly Walsh or another good journalist.

I don't agree with how this situation is being addressed, but it doesn't change my general view, to be clear.

Cycling stands on the brink, and it needs leaders to guide it out, and Wiggins is failing to provide that for me. I am disappoint

 

[MartinGT]

Weird, kind of agree as well. I think Wiggins has to engage properly with this debate, at this pivotal time for the sport. He is the current patron, it would be much healthier for him and the sport to tackle it head on. Perhaps not Kimmage, since they clearly don't like each other and I'm not sure an interview would be constructive, but certainly Walsh or another good journalist.

I don't agree with how this situation is being addressed, but it doesn't change my general view, to be clear.

Cycling stands on the brink, and it needs leaders to guide it out, and Wiggins is failing to provide that for me. I am disappoint

Aye.

I would prefer someone like Cancellera to do it. Wiggins for me doesnt have the personality for it, he is clearly unstable.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Aye.

I would prefer someone like Cancellera to do it. Wiggins for me doesnt have the personality for it, he is clearly unstable.

You are right, unstable may be the case, but the impression I get is that he just doesn't want to know, he doesn't want to talk about it, and when he is forced to it is half-hearted, saying what people want to hear, contradictory and also inaccurate.

You wonder why someone would sacrifice so much to succeed at a sport when you aren't interested in shouldering any of the responsibility that brings, to the sport and to the fans. He's said he doesn't like the celebrity lifestyle, and he clearly doesn't like cameras (we've seen the evidence) and mics thrust at him, I'm struggling to understand him and his motivations at the moment.

 

[thehog]

You are right, unstable may be the case, but the impression I get is that he just doesn't want to know, he doesn't want to talk about it, and when he is forced to it is half-hearted, saying what people want to hear, contradictory and also inaccurate.

You wonder why someone would sacrifice so much to succeed at a sport when you aren't interested in shouldering any of the responsibility that brings, to the sport and to the fans. He's said he doesn't like the celebrity lifestyle, and he clearly doesn't like cameras (we've seen the evidence) and mics thrust at him, I'm struggling to understand him and his motivations at the moment.

This I agree with. Some of it I think that he has a "pub personality" and doesn't want to make profound statements on doping and really can only express himself in pub speak.

 

[MartinGT]

This I agree with. Some of it I think that he has a "pub personality" and doesn't want to make profound statements on doping and really can only express himself in pub speak.

Aye thats spot on, and what you say too Jimmy. Its a real difficult one.

 

[thehog]

Aye thats spot on, and what you say too Jimmy. Its a real difficult one.

I would add when he was coming 134th you can make anti-doping statements and no one cares. The minute you come Top-10 you can't be as free with those types of comments. The UCI certainly wouldn't want anything too strong on that front from a prominent rider. Yes say you're clean but don't talk about burning down the house.

For Jack the Lad he's creating way too many divisions that he doesn't need to.

I predict an implosion this year...

 

[MartinGT]

I would add when he was coming 134th you can make anti-doping statements and no one cares. The minute you come Top-10 you can't be as free with those types of comments. The UCI certainly wouldn't want anything too strong on that front from a prominent rider. Yes say you're clean but don't talk about burning down the house.

For Jack the Lad he's creating way too many divisions that he doesn't need to.

I predict an implosion this year...

If the pressure keeps coming from Kimmage & Even if Walsh adds some (although I doubt that) then you maybe right.