• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 28, 2009
769
0
0
Parker said:
Big contributors: Benotti69, thehog, sniper, blackcat and a couple of others not on that thread.

You and other sensible contributors may think you set the tone and agenda of this forum, but you don't. They do. This forum has its own 'omerta' keeping the status quo which some aren't fully comfortable with.
I don't think anyone is arrogant enough to consider they "set the tone and agenda". What we have is a haphazard collection of individuals with a spectrum of opinion which is skewed towards the cynical by virtue of the topic. Anyone who keeps banging on about agendas, tone and omerta has developed an unhealthy obsession with something other than the actual discussions.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Ok, This actually what you wrote: "You and other sensible contributors may think you set the tone and agenda of this forum"

My point was simple - no-one here sets a tone.
The only reason you (and those others) think so is because you are here to push one side of an argument and you object to the 'tone' of the opposite.
My point is that the people I mentioned do set the tone. You're too institutionalised to notice. You object once in a while, but when someone says that this forum is generally seen as a joke rather than the agenda setters you beleive you are, you circle the wagons rather than assess.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Parker said:
My point is that the people I mentioned do set the tone. You're too institutionalised to notice. You object once in a while, but when someone says that this forum is generally seen as a joke rather than the agenda setters you beleive you are, you circle the wagons rather than assess.
So Mom was right, is all my fault?

2 things I object to, and I do it consistently (& often at annoyance to others) - one is to request links or more information. The other is when people like yourself attempt to portray thsi place as something it is not.

Its a forum - I come here to learn, and form an opinion and share what I know. I make up my own mind on things.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
Parker said:
One question. Do you go to any other forums? Ones with different posters to this? If so which ones?
I am a member of 2 or 3 other sites (under same username) but this is the only one I am active on.
 
May 19, 2012
480
0
0
Parker said:
No. I'm not saying that you set the tone. You don't - it would be nice if you did. I'm telling you those that do. You can deny it all you want - but those four posters largely set the tone of this forum. (You are nicknamed the Asylum elsewhere - that's not down to you)

Where? Roadbikereview?;)
 
Jul 28, 2009
769
0
0
BroDeal said:
You mean Sky Fanboy Central over there at Bike Radar's sad excuse for a racing forum?
It's amusing that despite frequent disparaging references to "the Asylum" it seems to be a major information source there.
 
Jul 9, 2009
6,625
0
0
Parker said:
Big contributors: Benotti69, thehog, sniper, blackcat and a couple of others not on that thread.

You and other sensible contributors may think you set the tone and agenda of this forum, but you don't. They do. This forum has its own 'omerta' keeping the status quo which some aren't fully comfortable with.
You are an idiot. Nobody pays any attention to hoggie, B69 and sniper are a bit extreme, blackcat posts when he wants to. Those guys (other than thehog) know what they are talking about, but they do not represent the mainstream of clinic posters. If you think they do then you must sober up and try to get a life because it doesn't seem to happening for you right now.
 
Jan 25, 2013
4
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
What does "big contributors" even mean?

There were 3 or 4 posters - that was it.
And actually as threads went it was ok, as there was a debate and people backed up their opinions with links, it wasn't just talk. Thats what forums are for.
My interpretation of big contributors is people with high post counts. Many of those have posted in the thread and they leave a nasty impression with me. The general tone of the thread is that Wiggins is very bad person for speaking out against Armstrong. One high post count user, BroDeal, mocks him for being beaten by a doper, nobody confronts him. No moderator tells him to pack it in. Another user, TheHog, argues in bad faith by pretending Wiggins was lying about ever riding with Armstrong, when it was clear what he meant in the interview - he wasn't there for his tour wins. There are only two users attempting to stand up to them - one is parker, and the other is Bat Man, who is now banned without trace.

If you are against any of these views then you really ought to say it, as they DO represent your forum. When these people lie and troll, it only undermines legitimate criticisms.
 
Jan 25, 2013
4
0
0
BroDeal said:
I know the fanbois will say I am imagining it, but I seem to recall a certain Lance Armstrong dropping Wigans on the way to La Grand-Bornand and the only reason it did not happen earlier is because Armstrong had a teammate up the road. Wiggins was holding Armstrong back.
Mocking a rider for being beaten by a doper? Where is the pushback against that? Very bad PR for this place.
 
Jun 19, 2009
11,437
0
0
PsychicCyclist said:
My interpretation of big contributors is people with high post counts. Many of those have posted in the thread and they leave a nasty impression with me. The general tone of the thread is that Wiggins is very bad person for speaking out against Armstrong. One high post count user, BroDeal, mocks him for being beaten by a doper, nobody confronts him. No moderator tells him to pack it in. Another user, TheHog, argues in bad faith by pretending Wiggins was lying about ever riding with Armstrong, when it was clear what he meant in the interview - he wasn't there for his tour wins. There are only two users attempting to stand up to them - one is parker, and the other is Bat Man, who is now banned without trace.

If you are against any of these views then you really ought to say it, as they DO represent your forum. When these people lie and troll, it only undermines legitimate criticisms.
I suppose one way to not have a high post count and be called a big contributor would be to spread your posting between all your sockpuppets.

But i actually don't care for post counts, it is what people write and contribute that is more important.
Like BatMan since you bring thm up, had a low post count but was as silly as BPC and he had loads of posts, see so its not numbers.
 
Dec 4, 2012
70
0
0
Joachim said:
Very easy for a bunch of internet warriors to come out with the sort of stuff you guys are (anonymously) but this is Wiggins work environment, not a school playground. He's shown the tact and diplomacy one would expect of a Tour champion. He's a public figure ffs, not some internet troll with nothing riding on it. Besides, he doesn't have to say anything. It wasn't him that doped for 7 Tours and dragged the sport into the gutter.

If I was in his position, I wouldn't have shot my mouth off until the appropriate moment either.
Lol, well said.
 
May 13, 2011
488
0
0
PsychicCyclist said:
My interpretation of big contributors is people with high post counts. Many of those have posted in the thread and they leave a nasty impression with me. The general tone of the thread is that Wiggins is very bad person for speaking out against Armstrong. One high post count user, BroDeal, mocks him for being beaten by a doper, nobody confronts him. No moderator tells him to pack it in. Another user, TheHog, argues in bad faith by pretending Wiggins was lying about ever riding with Armstrong, when it was clear what he meant in the interview - he wasn't there for his tour wins. There are only two users attempting to stand up to them - one is parker, and the other is Bat Man, who is now banned without trace.

If you are against any of these views then you really ought to say it, as they DO represent your forum. When these people lie and troll, it only undermines legitimate criticisms.
Congratulations - great knowledge of the other posters for a first post.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
PsychicCyclist said:
Mocking a rider for being beaten by a doper? Where is the pushback against that? Very bad PR for this place.
Back so soon after a ban? Back to your distortions, lies, and trolling, I see.

Wiggins claims there was a huge difference in Armstrong between Verbier and Ventoux but Wiggins got his clock cleaned on the Grand-Bornand stage. His story does not hold together.
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Cavendash said:
Lol, well said.
The only LOL about that is this line "He's shown the tact and diplomacy one would expect of a Tour champion..." Right then you should have stopped reading. Anyone who describes a clown like Wiggins as tactful or diplomatic is clearly trolling.
 
Dec 4, 2012
70
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Ok, This actually what you wrote: "You and other sensible contributors may think you set the tone and agenda of this forum"

My point was simple - no-one here sets a tone.
The only reason you (and those others) think so is because you are here to push one side of an argument and you object to the 'tone' of the opposite.
Oh they do, we all know who they are.
 
Dec 22, 2012
580
0
0
Wow! 20 more pages of bitterness since I last looked in. Some of you guys should listen to yourselves. It's not healthy. :eek:

Anyhoo, love the thought processes going on here. Quote JV twitter-> get angry about Wiggins apparent duplicity -> have a tantrum -> assert that it is proof of Wiggins doping -> forget that the person giving you the evidence is at the same time staking his credibility on Wiggins being clean.

Hilarious :D
 
Sep 23, 2011
481
0
0
I understand people not liking Wiggins because he is inconsistent - or for some that being yet another reason to dislike him. Certainly his inconsistency should be called out.

What I don't get is the idea that being inconsistent = being a doper. Surely if Wiggins had (has?) been doping all these years, his story and his position would be far better planned and rehearsed. As someone said earlier, true consistency is far more suspicious.
 
Dec 22, 2012
580
0
0
Well this is the Clinic, it is a place to talk about doping, so naturally people do. It's a place that some people use to vent irrational hatreds for particular riders, and these are the guys who will try and use anything to build a case against the rider, however farcical. I can't take them seriously, and neither should you.

In amongst all the guff are some very level-headed people, who never flame, insult, or get sanctimonious and these are the people with reasoned and intelligent arguments as they are not hampered by blind prejudice. You'll find them on both sides of the great 'is Wiggins a doper?' debate.
 
Jul 28, 2009
769
0
0
Joachim said:
Wow! 20 more pages of bitterness since I last looked in. Some of you guys should listen to yourselves. It's not healthy. :eek:

Anyhoo, love the thought processes going on here. Quote JV twitter-> get angry about Wiggins apparent duplicity -> have a tantrum -> assert that it is proof of Wiggins doping -> forget that the person giving you the evidence is at the same time staking his credibility on Wiggins being clean.

Hilarious :D
Actually, earlier today in the Clinic operations centre at the CN bunker the meeting of the Clinic Agenda and Tone Setting Committee did discuss closing down this thread as it had run it's course. However, it was unanimously decided to keep it going for the express purpose of ****ing Parker and Joachim off. Glad to see it's working.
 
May 26, 2009
2,614
0
0
Parker said:
But whenever a rider says something that doesn't tally with what is expected, then they get savaged. Even Nicole Cooke got savaged (a jumping the shark moment - again).

This forum is just a vestibule for vitriol and with every turn justifies Wiggins's sweary invective.
As one of the big contributors there I want to point out that this sheer and utter nonsense and twisting of truth.

Somehow a well laid out and argued critcism of Nicole Cooke's statement is somehow savaging her? While she was doing a complete blanket attack without evidence or offering a solution you would expect people critical of "the Ayslum" to take a stand.

Yet, somehow that is fine.

Now even Mellow Velo had to say he fully understood my reasoning and position.

And this is what is so bloody amazing. You present facts and explain why there are doubts. And yet there is a constant sniping and belittling, poohpoohing and handwaving. When confronted there comes out "yeah, that's true, it's a bit odd/conflicting" and then it starts all over again.

The tolerance for lying and hypocrisie is amazing.

Wiggins did not say he respected Lance. He LOVED him. He went on extolling how much Lance had done for the sport. It wasn't just once, he was very clearly a supporter of Lance. That's so far beyond a neutral or tactful stance that this isn't even worth a discussion.

Now if we look at Sastre, AC, Cadel they haven't been nearly as glowing beyond "we respect his career". It's clear that a TdF is nowhere near forced to say "I love Lance". This was Wiggins own choice.

Questioning this is not fanatical, it's beyond crazy that anyone who wants a cleaned up sport finds this acceptable.

Above does not proof either way Wiggins is Doping. But it does show that pre-2009 he was one of those who clearly fought doping. And after 2009 somehow it was opportune to go with the gravy train.

Anyone defending this clearly is okay with Omerta, Hypocrisie and lying, just as long as it's for their idol.

Somehow it makes me wonder who are the fanatics.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS