Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
hrotha said:
1) Wiggins hadn't been there, but his DS and several of his teammates had, and he knew the story.
2) Taking it on the chin until there was proof would equal shutting up, not praising Armstrong openly. How many times do we need to point this out?
Yep, he should have shut up like every other fecker in the peleton.
Then, he hasn't always behaved like every other fecker in the peleton. He was, it would seem, a fan. It's really not that hard to comprehend.

I doubt whether Wiggins gives a rat's **** about convincing the clinic. Nor should he. Anyway, the hills are a calling...carry on.
 
Aug 13, 2010
3,317
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Being inconsistent ≠ being a doper.

But being inconsistent does make his statements more difficult to trust, as he has a track record of contradicting or going against previous statements. So when he's stating "I did it clean", it's less trustworthy than somebody who doesn't have a track record of self-contradictions, so it's harder to accept the argument that "Wiggins says he's clean and hates dopers, therefore he's clean and hates dopers".
These days saying you are clean is not worth anything anyway regardless if you contradict yourself or not. In the end people who follow cycling that have more than a passing knowledge will judge you on other criteria.

Plenty have people have consistently said they are clean only for it later to emerge this was not the case. People seem to put an awful lot of stock into what Wiggin's says. I am sure you can gauge something from them but I doubt it is as conclusive as they think.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
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.
Yet you continue to post here since march 2011?

That would make you one a 'Wiggins's sweary invective' ;)
 
Mar 18, 2009
1,003
0
0
Just been browsing the stefano Ferrari/Armstrong emails - is it usual for riders from different teams to know each others SRM data? Thought that was all hush hush? Yet Armstrong knew wiggins' in 2009 Paris-nice prologue
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
bianchigirl said:
Just been browsing the stefano Ferrari/Armstrong emails - is it usual for riders from different teams to know each others SRM data? Thought that was all hush hush? Yet Armstrong knew wiggins' in 2009 Paris-nice prologue
Jv is very protective of techno info so that does seem strange or maybe that was the lesson JV learnt in 2009 to be protective.

But info can be bought no doubt.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
if

guncha said:
What will Wiggins say when get caught?
we're still at the IF stage.................brad states concisely that he has nothing to worry about as he is clean

but if he was caught out i could imagine the expletives

and a good couple of thousand pages in the clinic

just look at this thread............brad's words completely over analysed as though he was the greatest living poet

don't forget he's just a cyclist
 
bianchigirl said:
Just been browsing the stefano Ferrari/Armstrong emails - is it usual for riders from different teams to know each others SRM data? Thought that was all hush hush? Yet Armstrong knew wiggins' in 2009 Paris-nice prologue
I wonder where the data came from :rolleyes:
 
Ferminal said:
Do we genuinely believe anyone who rode at the top level 1999-2005 didn't know what was going on?
In such situations it really comes down to a matter of timing and context.

His statements when Lance was "safe" are worrying. Wiggins was hedging his bets as was McQuaid. They appeared to know the Federal Investigation was likely to drop.

The comments around Landis, 500 tests etc. further compounded the worry.

Now that Armstrong has allowed a select to deride him to save their own skins - the UCI, Wiggins, they appear to be doing so for a specific reason.

The corruption dots appear to join neatly.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
Some of his responses on the subject have been inconsistent even since then.

I'm not going to call him out for not saying anything about Armstrong at the time, since that would have been stupid and career-suicidal (not to mention meaning he'd forever be answering questions about Armstrong and not about his own successes. Which you could argue has turned into the case now, but he's had three and a half years to enjoy that not being the case, and his own successes could have been limited somewhat if Armstrong had gone all Simeoni on him in 2009). However, sometimes he went beyond the call of what was required in order to not draw attention to himself and into the gratuitously pro-Armstrong comments at that point. He hasn't in recent months, but a comment as grounded and as understanding of the issues as this one seems incongruous from somebody who claimed never to have raced with the man a couple of months ago, or who said it came as a shock to him.

Wiggins isn't a dumb man, no matter what some people here might try to persuade you. He just sometimes has a short fuse, or a lack of patience to deal with stupid questions (or inferences that don't fit with what he wants to project, natch), and fires off some poorly-worded emotionally charged responses sometimes, and at other times he gets conflicted with the on-message sponsor voice. He's clearly taking his time to get used to juggling the positions as a corporate mouthpiece, a spokesperson for the péloton and for cycling as a whole, and the various audiences that his responses need to be tailored for. Sometimes he can be one of the more likable characters in the péloton, witty, sarcastic and direct. Other times he's a raging, flippant ****** with a staggering lack of self-awareness. The more pressure he's under and the less time he has to think, the more likely the second personality is to surface.

But his opinions of Lance have done more than one U-turn, and so pinches of salt are required, as well as much firmer understandings of the contexts in which the various quotes came about, before we can unconditionally praise his responses without also drawing attention to some of the inherent contradictions in the thoughts, deeds and opinions of Bradley Wiggins. Seem fair?
I'm quoting this again, as it does seem pretty fair, and more interesting than some of the previous content on this thread. That said, I'm not sure he really has done 'U-turns' - even today he's still saying he was a fan, he still is openly admitting to be fairly conflicted about the whole thing, and perhaps the only consistency you'll get from him is that he has several differing emotional views on Lance? The question is how much each of us emphasises with that 'lack of consistency' - I do feel sometimes contributors on this forum hold Wiggins to too high a standard of consistency.

What I thought was also interesting in the BBC interview, is how he describes how in 2009 'he was happy on the Champs Elysee to say he'd been beaten by three better cyclists, now he feels he's been cheated out of'. . . and then there's a slight pause, as if he's rapidly thinking through his response. . . 'third place and the podium'. Did anyone else spot this - I think he was almost going to call out Contador/possibly Schleck, and then thought better of it, and bit his tongue.

So (assuming for a moment this interpretation is true, which it might not be!) I guess the question is, is this further evidence of him being a contradictory lier, which might get later exposed (imagine a future in which some of the continuing fall out from Lance takes Contador out for 2009 (if of course Contador was dirty then, I'm not saying he was!) and future Brad says 'I'm not surprised'), or is it an example of choosing not to say anything at all to avoid being inconsistent - and is that a good thing or a bad thing? Or is it just an example of him making a snap judgement on which of his thoughts to present at an individual moment in his life?
 
Dec 22, 2012
934
0
0
thehog said:
In such situations it really comes down to a matter of timing and context.

His statements when Lance was "safe" are worrying. Wiggins was hedging his bets as was McQuaid. They appeared to know the Federal Investigation was likely to drop.

The comments around Landis, 500 tests etc. further compounded the worry.

Now that Armstrong has allowed a select to deride him to save their own skins - the UCI, Wiggins, they appear to be doing so for a specific reason.

The corruption dots appear to join neatly.
Maybe it's just that you've never heard of the concept of sub judice
 
armchairclimber said:
Yep, he should have shut up like every other fecker in the peleton.
Then, he hasn't always behaved like every other fecker in the peleton. He was, it would seem, a fan. It's really not that hard to comprehend.

I doubt whether Wiggins gives a rat's **** about convincing the clinic. Nor should he. Anyway, the hills are a calling...carry on.
Lol what a post.


1 wiggins is excused from everything because he's"different". Doesn't matter whether it adds up or not, he's different.

2 your all insignificant anyway (the ultimate last resort flame). Wiggins doesn't care (as if people were trying to convince wiggins)

3 im leaving.


Mate your arguments weren't making any sense. no matter how many different ways you try to spin it wiggins did say those things about lance. The reason you felt like you were banging your head against a wall is because there is no spinning it. Wiggos contradictions do raise question marks. He was passionate and consistent enough in both his stances that even the most wild imagination can't invent a plausible explanation that he doesn't come.off bad in.
 
Oct 17, 2012
331
0
0
RownhamHill said:
I'm quoting this again, as it does seem pretty fair, and more interesting than some of the previous content on this thread. That said, I'm not sure he really has done 'U-turns' - even today he's still saying he was a fan, he still is openly admitting to be fairly conflicted about the whole thing, and perhaps the only consistency you'll get from him is that he has several differing emotional views on Lance? The question is how much each of us emphasises with that 'lack of consistency' - I do feel sometimes contributors on this forum hold Wiggins to too high a standard of consistency.

What I thought was also interesting in the BBC interview, is how he describes how in 2009 'he was happy on the Champs Elysee to say he'd been beaten by three better cyclists, now he feels he's been cheated out of'. . . and then there's a slight pause, as if he's rapidly thinking through his response. . . 'third place and the podium'. Did anyone else spot this - I think he was almost going to call out Contador/possibly Schleck, and then thought better of it, and bit his tongue.

So (assuming for a moment this interpretation is true, which it might not be!) I guess the question is, is this further evidence of him being a contradictory lier, which might get later exposed (imagine a future in which some of the continuing fall out from Lance takes Contador out for 2009 (if of course Contador was dirty then, I'm not saying he was!) and future Brad says 'I'm not surprised'), or is it an example of choosing not to say anything at all to avoid being inconsistent - and is that a good thing or a bad thing? Or is it just an example of him making a snap judgement on which of his thoughts to present at an individual moment in his life?
I thought that pause said a lot more than his actual words.

It seems to me that Wiggans can't win either way. Yes he is inconsistent, but show me a sportsman who hasn't been (Footballers kissing the badge before going off to play for a bigger club in the next transfer window). He also has to be very careful what he says about doping bearing in mind the ridiculous libel laws in this country and his knowledge of what Lance did to people who spoke out against him. Also it appears it is not a subject he is comfortable talking about.

You certainly get the impression in an ideal world he would just want to ride his bike then go home, the reality is that he has to deal with the press and the fame monster. That is why you can see his wife cringe every time he opens his mouth to a microphone.

P.S. I still don't know if he dopes or not, but trying to work it out from his words/statements is an excercise in futility.
 
Björn Ferry's pretty consistent, or at least has been for the last few years, can't find much in the way of quotes from him before then (maybe a Swedish-speaking poster could help out). But so far we've had him calling the Russians who tested positive in 2009 "a bunch of idiots", that dopers have "low moral standards", at the Olympics he stated that he wouldn't mind if dopers got the death penalty "or at least lots of kicks in the balls", and after placing fourth in a World Championship race behind a shock performance from unheralded Ukrainian Andriy Deryzemlya, stated "I haven't given up hope yet. He has to take a leak first, and then we'll see. I know him, he usually comes 40th, not 3rd".

Like a lot of Sky, you can spin everything as feasible if you ignore vast chunks of history. If you draw a line in the sand after the Beijing Olympics and reopen it again recently, Wiggins has been consistent and saying good things in his doping discussions. However, it's hard for us to un-hear the period of Armstrong praising. Similarly, if you draw a line in the sand after the 2008 Tour de France and reopen it again at the 2011 Vuelta, Chris Froome made linear, if slightly surprising, progress. But I can't un-see that period from 2009 to July 2011 where the only things he did of any note were trying to ride a bike sideways on San Luca, and getting kicked out of the 2010 Giro for drafting.
 
ebandit said:
just look at this thread............brad's words completely over analysed as though he was the greatest living poet

don't forget he's just a cyclist
No they are not.being overanslysed. People are making simple 2 second comparisons between what he said then and what he said now. Jv only needed 10 words to say the same thing.

Its the fans (the particularly loyal ones) who bring in the analysis by offering wild imaginative explanations that fail carry massive flaws.
 
Aug 2, 2012
5,971
1
0
a world apart

thehog said:
They give me a hard time because I'm right.
modesty yes...........an endearing trait

but so often your wrong or have just made stuff up hog....look at all the members highlighting your flexibility with the truth yesterday

yet you expect so much more from brad

would it not be better to let brad do his talking with his bike..............and take his words with a pinch of...................

yes! i know it doesn't help that brad likes the attention..........which reminds
me of where i started
 
ebandit said:
modesty yes...........an endearing trait

but so often your wrong or have just made stuff up hoggie....look at all the members highlighting your flexibility with the truth yesterday

yet you expect so much more from brad

would it not be better to let brad do his talking with his bike..............and take his words with a pinch of...................

yes! i know it doesn't help that brad likes the attention..........which reminds
me of where i started
Let the record show this is the sixth time I've request that you don't change my name.

I've reported it to the moderators to deal with.

Thank-you.
 
I would have respected him more if he came out at the start and said he never doubted him etc instead of being "shocked"

Complete ***. He never doubted he doped etc. Why was he comparing himself to USPS then earlier?

More nails in the Team Sly coffin!
 
Dec 13, 2012
1,859
0
0
Wiggins has said so many contradictory things over the last 3-4 years its very very difficult to keep track of, yet alone work out what is 'true' opinion might be. He is a bizarre character that is for sure.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Don't be late Pedro said:
These days saying you are clean is not worth anything anyway regardless if you contradict yourself or not. In the end people who follow cycling that have more than a passing knowledge will judge you on other criteria.

Plenty have people have consistently said they are clean only for it later to emerge this was not the case. People seem to put an awful lot of stock into what Wiggin's says. I am sure you can gauge something from them but I doubt it is as conclusive as they think.
The sport and riders only have themselves to blame for that and Wiggins is one of the biggest culprits with his statements of 'love' for Armstrong to having never ridden with him to 'lying *******'.
 
The Hitch said:
no matter how many different ways you try to spin it wiggins did say those things about lance. The reason you felt like you were banging your head against a wall is because there is no spinning it. Wiggos contradictions do raise question marks. He was passionate and consistent enough in both his stances that even the most wild imagination can't invent a plausible explanation that he doesn't come.off bad in.
Libertine Seguros said:
Like a lot of Sky, you can spin everything as feasible if you ignore vast chunks of history. If you draw a line in the sand after the Beijing Olympics and reopen it again recently, Wiggins has been consistent and saying good things in his doping discussions. However, it's hard for us to un-hear the period of Armstrong praising.
SundayRider said:
Wiggins has said so many contradictory things over the last 3-4 years its very very difficult to keep track of, yet alone work out what is 'true' opinion might be. He is a bizarre character that is for sure.
I understand your position, but respectfully I don't really agree with any of this. I think it's far too black and white, and I think it displays a lack of empathy for any kind of emotion within public figures.

Here's what I think is a 'plausible' or 'feasible' explanation that doesn't ignore vast chunks of history. A few assumptions I make about Brad first (which you're all welcome to disagree with!)

First Brad is a fairly volatile, overly defensive character. (I think MartinVickers' view on his tendency to lash out is fairly on the mark) I also think he's got some deep seated self-confidence issues.

Second, (indulge me) he's a clean athlete.

Third he grew up a fan of Lance Armstrong, and then later - in 2009 particularly - was completely star-struck by him when he got to know him personally (related, I would imagine to a deep seated self-confidence issue, and worry about his own legitimacy and position within the peloton)

Finally he is uncomfortable as a talking head, and has a tendency to play up whatever position he's taking in interviews.

So. In 2007 he's volatile and defensive about drugs cheats. Then in 2009 he's more positive about Lance - not because he's cynically lying through his teeth for a laugh (or because he's suddenly started to dope. . .), but partly because he's under Lance's spell, partly because he does have some genuine admiration for him and his role at expanding the profile of cycling, partly because perhaps he wants, or hopes, to believe the second coming is clean, partly because expressing positivity is the sensible thing to say (and once he takes a position, he tends to really take it), partly because he's annoyed at what he sees as other people trying to put words into his mouth, and partly - in essence - cos he's a contrarian. Now, in 2012, with some distance he's probably feeling a bit embarrassed he had such a man-crush on the guy, but he's also perhaps come to terms with his own success, and the worth and legitimacy of his own opinions and position within the peloton. And also the facts have changed, with USADA and Lance's admissions - so any of that residual admiration for Lance, or hope that he really is clean this time, is gone. So his opinions seem a bit more punchy.

I personally don't see any of that as particularly unfeasible, or particularly offensive to be honest. He looks bad, maybe, in that he cosied up to Lance in 2009. But he did, and he's got to own that. But I think he is a bit - he's still talking about how much admiration he had for him as a 'better athlete' in 2009, and now it's beginning to dawn on him that maybe Lance really wasn't a better athlete than him - which rationally he might have tried to tell himself before, but emotionally he probably didn't feel it.

Feelings are important.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS