Grand Tourist said:
The thing to remember about Wiggins is that he isn't very bright. He's also impetuous which means he says things without considering the ramifications. Bearing this in mind his inconsistent statements about Armstrong are understandable.
If i was on jury duty and the defense used the argument - bare in mind my defense is stupid so he did not know the ramifications of self.incrimination, am i supposed to go - oh in that cts all inadmissible then?
mastersracer said:
and JV, who called him out for making such remarks (partially quoted in this thread) adds that he thinks Wiggins is clean (that part is left out of the 'incriminating' twitter excerpts - selective editing by Wiggins haters).
Are you guys playing dumb or are you for real? Do you not understand the difference between testimony and opinion?
What jv wrote about wiggins and lance yesterday was a matter of fact statement. He was there he saw it, it happened.
What Jv writes about wiggins being clean is that its his opinion. He wasn't there he didn't see it and he doesn't know 100% if it happened.
You see the difference. I mean its a pretty big one.
That said its all redundant anyway because Jv saying he thinks wiggins is clean was mentioned in this thread. And in this.many other threads