Wiggins, Clinic respect?

[Dr. Maserati]

On the other hand, Wiggins joined the team after Lance announced his comeback, so perhaps they decided not to be as open with Lance's real story in light of that.

I don't rate it as likely, but it is at least plausible. Did JV ever confirm that he told Wiggins the real story?

Wiggins confirms it in his book, saying he had heard the stories of LA from JV.

 

[hrotha]

Did JV ever confirm that he told Wiggins the real story?

Yes, he did.

 

[Franklin]

Point being there is often more than two answers to a question. No insult intended.

There are many answers. But the "He had no choice but to say he Loved Lance" is ridonculous.

Either he was blatantly lying or he was the biggest naive guy in the world. The latter seems quite odd (I'd say it's completely impossible) considering his earlier rants against dopers and early experience with his own team being destroyed in scandal.

Even if we look at a tiny portion of the story.. Lance was known to work with Ferrari. Wiggins once said he wanted these guys banned from the sport. Yet with Lance he didn't try the tactical "I respect him and his foundation", no he loved the guy. Either he was temporarily struck by insanity or somehow the rules changed when he himself became a contender.

It's not fanatic to point out these contradictions. This is allegedly a clean TDF winner of a clean team. Something which has happend only a few times in the history (Lemond, Evans, Wiggo?). How does that fit?

 

[RownhamHill]

There are many answers. But the "He had no choice but to say he Loved Lance" is ridonculous.

Either he was blatantly lying or he was the biggest naive guy in the world. The latter seems quite odd (I'd say it's comepletely impossible) considering his earlier rants against dopers and early experience with his own team being destroyed in scandal.

Even if we look at a tiny portion of the story.. Lance was known to work with Ferrari. Wiggins once said he wanted these guys banned from the sport. Yet with Lance he didn't try the tactical "I respect him and his foundation", no he loved the guy. Either he was temporarily struck by insanity or somehow the rules changed when he himself became a contender.

It's not fanatic to point out these contradictions. This is allegedly a clean TDF winner of a clean team. Something which has happend only a few times in the history (Lemond, Evans, Wiggo?). How does that fit?

Or maybe at the time he said it, he truly loved the guy? Maybe he was in awe of him, a bit intimidated, and maybe Lance played him like a violin for a while (possibly to have a pop at JV)? Hence JV's twitter comments last night about dealing with Wiggins being Lance BFF during the 2009 tour. All this is possible without having to be hooked up to a blood bag himself, is it not? And maybe that is temporary insanity, or maybe life is just not quite as simple as you make out.

 

[The Hitch]

Wait. I'm losing track of this. What exactly is he pretending he didn't say?

That he loved Lance for example. Or to go off topic slightly he basically denies he ever had that emotional outburst against doping in 2007 by saying doping was 15 years ago.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I've absolutely no interest in 'covering' for Wiggins & for the record I think Sky are well dodgy.

No one in the Peleton was going take a pop at Armstrong in 2009 whatever their private feelings about him. He was too powerful & in those days Wiggins hadn't acquired the status in the sport he now enjoys.

I don't think there's much merit in over analysing what Wiggins says. He's asked a question & it just pops out.

That's fine, but then why bring up that he isn't bright?

Again, I could understand BW saying nothing, or giving the 'respect', or cancer Jesus line, but he didn't. He gushed about him, while suspecting he doped?!

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Possible hypotheses for the current situation:

1) Wiggins did not know LA was doping until the Reasoned Decision. Consequences of this:
- Wiggins didn't realise what he was saying when he said Sky would use USPS as a template and didn't expect the negative backlash and doping accusations
- Wiggins lied in the interview yesterday, because he said he realised LA was doping in 2009
- Vaughters lied yesterday, because he hadn't made Wiggins aware of the whole situation.

I feel that this situation marks Wiggins out not only as a liar but incredibly stupid, and feel that this credits him with too little intelligence.

2) Wiggins found out LA was doping in 2009 as JV stated, and as an aggressive anti-doper was turned off by this. Consequences of this:
- Wiggins' interviews from 2009 to the Reasoned Decision are full of lies, or misunderstood sarcasm
- Wiggins was willing to sidle up to a known cheat in order to advance his career
- Wiggins was lying when he reacted to the Reasoned Decision, because he had known for three years plus what had gone on.
- Wiggins knew what happened at USPS and is therefore naïve not to have expected the backlash when he compared Sky to them.
- Wiggins did a smear job on Floyd Landis even when knowing that Landis was correct.

3) Wiggins found out LA was doping in 2009 as per JV, but didn't want to believe it. Consequences of this:
- Wiggins has gone out of his way to defend LA to justify the opinion he wants to be the case in the face of knowing the reality, and takes multiple opportunities to voice this
- Wiggins lied when he responded to the Reasoned Decision and in those interviews to protect the LA myth, which makes him by proxy part of omertà.
- Wiggins also upheld omertà by doing a smear job on Landis despite knowing he was correct.

The only way we can spin this pretty fairly is if Wiggins found out Armstrong was doping somwhere after the 'love' comments of 2009-11, but before the Reasoned Decision. The problem is that then implies that a) Vaughters is a liar, as he didn't make Wiggins aware of USPS, and b) Wiggins is a liar, because he didn't realise partway through the 2009 Tour what was going on.

Either way, somebody is lying in this situation, possibly everybody. Actually, this is cycling: probably everybody.

 

[RownhamHill]

That he loved Lance for example. Or to go off topic slightly he basically denies he ever had that emotional outburst against doping in 2007 by saying doping was 15 years ago.

But how's he pretending he didn't say that?

If you say something three years ago, and then change your mind, and say something else today that surely doesn't mean you are 'pretending' not to have said the earlier thing, does it? It just means you've changed your mind? Even today he's still seems to happily admit that he used to be a fan, and had a lot of positive feelings for the guy - hence the emotional reaction when he finally admitted the truth on Oprah.

Indeed I'm pretty sure I saw an interview from Wiggins in the Guardian before Christmas, where he explicitly discussed this whole issue, and basically said he made a decision to give Lance the benefit of the doubt back then, partly because of his charisma, and he stands by that now (this was post USADA) - I can't find the interview though, so it might have been an extract from his autobiography (which is now copyright restricted on the Guardian site)

 

[Benotti69]

I think that's kind of the point I'm making, isn't it? You might know in your rational mind that the guy used to dope. And you think you know it's still the case now (though, really, other than for a small coterie of Armstrong's inner circle, what does 'know' mean in this context other than believe very strongly?). But then there's the guy himself, being your mate, making you feel good about himself and your position in the world, and there's your younger, 13 year old self reminding you how impressed you were back then, and there's this desire to hope for the best, that this time it's different, and there's the money you make out of the whole circus, and the vested interest in the (what you feel) is the bloke's success at raising 'the profile' (read: your wages) of the sport, then there's the doubt that the thing staring you straight in the face is true when the guy denies it so convincingly, and makes you feel so good about yourself.

And so - in one particular moment, when someone is asking you about him - you give him the benefit of the doubt, and you say 'oh yeah, I love him, he's been great for the sport'.

It doesn't mean that you don't have any scintilla of doubt. It doesn't mean that the only explanation is that you are now obviously doping. It just means you are a real person, with real, sometimes contradictory emotions, and that's how you were feeling at that particular moment in time. And maybe your head has been turned.

Would Wiggins be the first person to the history of the world who's given someone they love/admire the benefit of the doubt? Because I always thought that 'love is blind' cliche is rooted in some sort of recognisable truth.

Problem with this line of thought is that plenty of people were saying Armstrong was doping since 2001 when it became public knowledge that he was working with Ferarri. Every cyclist in the peloton back then would've known who Ferarri was and what working with him meant.

Wiggins flip flopping between hating dopers, to loving Armstrong, to all fans who doubt are bone idle w**kers to now Armstrong is a lying ******* aint someone who has things straight.

Maybe he should lay off the wacky backy till his sport career is over.

 

[Joachim]

That is the point, why do it now if not then? Oh because it becomes the norm for the collective e.g. Ricco.

Because he's not in a race with Armstrong, in fact Armstrong is not only retired, but banned and retired.

If ever there was an appropriate time to talk about it, it's now. When I say appropriate, I mean appropriate for Wiggins.

 

[Franklin]

Because he's not in a race with Armstrong, in fact Armstrong is not only retired, but banned and retired.

If ever there was an appropriate time to talk about it, it's now. When I say appropriate, I mean appropriate for Wiggins.

Very nice dodge, but again, it's not that he didn't accuse Lance. He loved the guy.

The facts are rather clear here, yet somehow you haven't reacted on them.

 

[Robert21]

I could understand BW saying nothing, or giving the 'respect', or cancer Jesus line, but he didn't. He gushed about him, while suspecting he doped?!

And, most importantly, doing so even when Armstrong prevented him from being the first ever British rider on the Tour podium, back in 2009. The response of Wiggins was to praise and defend Armstrong, a big change from the reaction the 'old' Wiggo gave in response to doping. (And that was when he was 'losing an hour a day' in any case and so, it could be argued, was less directly affected.) I know that if I was racing clean and that had happened to me I would have been shouting about it from the rooftops!

 

[Joachim]

Very nice dodge, but again, it's not that he didn't accuse Lance. He loved the guy.

The facts are rather clear here, yet somehow you haven't reacted on them.

You don't know what I'm referring to because you haven't read Ferminal and my posts of the past few hours.

Not your fault because this thread is very convoluted and has several conversations ongoing. Makes it hard to just step in.

It goes back to me asking Ferminal if there are any precedents for riders openly accusing another rider of doping during a race.

I can't think of any, can you? Can you see why I'm saying this?

 

[The Hitch]

But how's he pretending he didn't say that?

If you say something three years ago, and then change your mind, and say something else today that surely doesn't mean you are 'pretending' not to have said the earlier thing, does it? It just means you've changed your mind?

Wiggins doesnt acknowledge that he changed his mind does he. not that there would be anything wrong with - i was wrong to defend lance against his accusers etc. He acts like this has been his stance for the last 3 years. He even says he suspected Armstrong already in 09.

PS to the 10 sky fans about to write - but he was being tactful and careful and didnt want to kick lance until he was dead, or some other crap like that, bear in mind he said he loved lance.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

So i shouldnt take your comments seriously either?

I am friends with cav or el calimero?

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

I think Cav is a lot smarter than he's given credit for. He's badly educated & therefore ignorant but by no means stupid.

he's street wise, which wiggins is neither. but unintelligent no doubt imo

 

[Libertine Seguros]

You don't know what I'm referring to because you haven't read Ferminal and my posts of the past few hours.

Not your fault because this thread is very convoluted and has several conversations ongoing. Makes it hard to just step in.

It goes back to me asking Ferminal if there are any precedents for riders openly accusing another rider of doping during a race.

I can't think of any, can you? Can you see why I'm saying this?

No cyclists, but that Björn Ferry quote about Deryzemlya is pretty blatant.

It would appear Cunego was only talking about himself when he answered "there are General Classifications and there are life's classifications" to a question about why he was being left behind by di Luca et al, but you could read it as implicitly stating something about the others too.

Bassons stopped short of saying Armstrong was doping back in 1999, but his column dropped hints of how shocking Armstrong's transformation had been.

Charlie Wegelius tweeted something along the lines of "Cobo!? Really?!" during the 2011 Vuelta.

 

[thehog]

No cyclists, but that Björn Ferry quote about Deryzemlya is pretty blatant.

It would appear Cunego was only talking about himself when he answered "there are General Classifications and there are life's classifications" to a question about why he was being left behind by di Luca et al, but you could read it as implicitly stating something about the others too.

Bassons stopped short of saying Armstrong was doping back in 1999, but his column dropped hints of how shocking Armstrong's transformation had been.

Charlie Wegelius tweeted something along the lines of "Cobo!? Really?!" during the 2011 Vuelta.

Basso about Sky in 2012.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It has been said a lot of times in this thread, but it basically come down to this:
* 2009 Wiggins knows LA is doping and he is riding clean costing him a podium
* 2010 and beyond Wiggins has a bromance for LA
* 2013 LA confesses his doping during his 7 Tour victories but states he didn't dope in 2009/10
* 2013 Wiggins hates LA for being a boneidle w@nking doper!

How about that for a hypocrite? Why would anyone have any respect for Wiggins?

And yes, LA is the new Ricco for the peloton. What a w@nkers.

This summed it up nicely:

How very brave of Wigans to pile on and profess his outrage now that it's clearly safe to do so. It certainly takes a brave man to play lapdog to Armstrong when he was the most powerful man in the sport and then to kick him when he's a public disgrace.

Truly the sport of cycling is well represented - the sport gets the "champion" it deserves.

What an hypocrite ahole, no respect at all for sir knighthood.

 

[Joachim]

Basso about Sky in 2012.

Ahh yes..the quote where he goes on to say Wiggins can only do what he did because he is a true champion.

Are you sure you want to bring that up again? It didn't work out for you too well last time...

 

[thehog]

It has been said a lot of times in this thread, but it basically come down to this:
* 2009 Wiggins knows LA is doping and he is riding clean costing him a podium
* 2010 and beyond Wiggins has a bromance for LA
* 2013 LA confesses his doping during his 7 Tour victories but states he didn't dope in 2009/10
* 2013 Wiggins hates LA for being a boneidle w@nking doper!

How about that for a hypocrite? Why would anyone have any respect for Wiggins?

And yes, LA is the new Ricco for the peloton. What a w@nkers.

This summed it up nicely:


What an hypocrite ahole, no respect at all for sir knighthood.

Well summed up. But you need to add in Wiggins giving Kimmage the right boot also and calling him bitter.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You don't know what I'm referring to because you haven't read Ferminal and my posts of the past few hours.

Not your fault because this thread is very convoluted and has several conversations ongoing. Makes it hard to just step in.

It goes back to me asking Ferminal if there are any precedents for riders openly accusing another rider of doping during a race.

I can't think of any, can you? Can you see why I'm saying this?

Since you asked, to me the obvious answer is to dodge, or deflect criticism of Wiggins.
But you are welcome to answer and correct your own question.

It is irrelevant if someone accusing another rider during a race - what Wiggins did was praise and gush about LA, all while suspecting LA doped keeping him off the podium?!

 

[RownhamHill]

The only way we can spin this pretty fairly is if Wiggins found out Armstrong was doping somwhere after the 'love' comments of 2009-11, but before the Reasoned Decision. The problem is that then implies that a) Vaughters is a liar, as he didn't make Wiggins aware of USPS, and b) Wiggins is a liar, because he didn't realise partway through the 2009 Tour what was going on.

Either way, somebody is lying in this situation, possibly everybody. Actually, this is cycling: probably everybody.

Or maybe no-one's lying, they're just honestly reporting how they feel at any given moment in time? Maybe JV did tell him what he knew about the past, and maybe Wiggins did suspect something wasn't right in 2009, maybe part of him 'knew' that was the case. But equally maybe another part of him wanted to go on believing or was convinced by Lance etc?

Look at it like this. Wiggins today is saying he reacted emotionally when he watched Oprah. Yet a month ago he wasn't surprised when USADA report was released. Is he lying today about the emotion, or was he lying before Christmas about his lack of surprise. Or is it possible that he simultaneously could both rationalise the truth in December, and yet still feel the cut of the actual admission in January - and that's nothing to do with lying, it's just about being, well, alive?

I do have real trouble with this idea that if someone is inconsistent or contradictory in what they say or feel, then the only explanation is that they're lying. Everyone I have ever met has been inconsistent and contradictory at times.

 

[Joachim]

No cyclists, but that Björn Ferry quote about Deryzemlya is pretty blatant.

It would appear Cunego was only talking about himself when he answered "there are General Classifications and there are life's classifications" to a question about why he was being left behind by di Luca et al, but you could read it as implicitly stating something about the others too.

Bassons stopped short of saying Armstrong was doping back in 1999, but his column dropped hints of how shocking Armstrong's transformation had been.

Charlie Wegelius tweeted something along the lines of "Cobo!? Really?!" during the 2011 Vuelta.

So if no cyclist has ever done so, why are people questioning why Wiggins didn't, during the race, in 2009?

Double-standards? Especially high ones for the cyclist you hate?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Basso about Sky in 2012.

Simonis ET comment about Basso in 2006.