The Hitch said:
Yeah and Wiggins was allegedly also under continous pressure for those 3 years where he attacked those who questioned Armstrong and defended that ******bag. Especially when he accused Landis of making it up.
The guy had no sympathy for other tdf winners when he said they all deserve to be held under suspicion, why should the same luxury be granted to him?
What behaviour of Wiggins will not get explained by - oh he was under pressure cos he was trying to win a sports event. At what point does a heavily romanticized celebrity in his 30's take responsibility for his actions. *In the real world people have to take responsibility at 18 at the latest yet for Wiggins the fanboys demand that absolutely every time he does something bad it be stricken from the record
Have to say, Hitch, that's a pretty perfect example of venting your own feelings and assuming the general GB public shares them. They really don't. Back away from your own dislike for a minute and you'll realise that.
Everyone who really follows track and field suspects strongly that Maurice Greene doped - hell, his once best friend, rival and training partner thinks so!
Now, Ato, for better or worse, has a slightly better rep than Greene. you may not believe in him, you may adopt the 'they all doped' position, that's your faith, that's fine, but generally? Ato has a better rep, not least because of the letter. Ato is also articulate and good copy - so he gets a nice pundit gig.
But you know what? Maurice got a nice pundit gig too! And he can't present for toffee.
So did known doper Séan Kelly of the 'calculations' and 'monotones'. And no doubt they all fold that nice gig into other nice little earners. Just like Redgrave, Colin Jackson, Mark Foster and all the rest. And Wiggins palmares is far better than all of these, possibly bar Kelly and Redgrave.
Wiggins may well not trust or like the media, but he's significantly more entertaining to listen to, not least because he has a slight loose cannon quality. If you don't like listening to him cause you hate the guy for in depth clinic reasons and his personality and back history, that's absolutely kosher and fine. I'm not arguing about the validity of what you think about the guy.
Just, please, stop assuming you reflect public opinion on the matter - you really, really don't, and it skews your analysis of what is likely to occur.
If he went for a pundit gig, they'd find one for him, be not afraid. and he'd then use that 'media' contacts to get his nice little earners flowing. And, short of a drugs bust post ex facto, the GB public will lap it up. He was an absolute rock star, for example, at Sports Personality 2012 - amid all that 2012 bling, Mo, Ennis, Murray et al. I know that may well stick in your throat, and i can understand that, but it doesn't stop it being true.