Wiggins, Clinic respect?

[Truth&Reconciliation]

Vaughters was in a rare position in the peloton of having fallen out with Armstrong and so didn't join the party. But he doesn't seem to have gone to any great lengths to convince people around him of Armstrong's evilness. Didn't Millar welcome him back to the sport? Vaughters also seemed to think Armstrong's tour wins were a settled issue.

In truth, Vaughters hasn't ever really been a great anti Armstrong martyre. He never criticised him publicaly. This is the type of thing we got from Vaughters before 2011....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/no-evidence-of-epo-during-vaughters-time-at-postal-1

 

[DirtyWorks]

I think people are being unreasonable about Wiggins....

There are a large number of problems with your post. The problems may be attributed to not knowing the particulars of how the UCI/sport manages to minimize controversy over the years. How about concentrating on briefer posts covering one factor and maybe ask questions before jumping to a conclusion?

Wiggo's 2012 performances are way out of **his** norm and WAY out of historical norms for any elite track rider that has transitioned to GC podium. Well, except for the year-end results that fell perfectly in line with his norm. He's covering up 2012.

 

[Franklin]

So, yes, whilst riders like Wiggins were uncomfortable with the doping of that era, it was a settled issue by 09 that Armstrong had won those tours and he was, at least, the best of that dirty era. At the time, there was a general attitude of 'let bygones be bygones and celebrate the good he has done for the sport'.

Hey man! Indeed! That was why Sastre, and Cadel were extollling the virtues of Lance. Basso, Nibali, everyone was saying they LOVED Lance Not the sissy "Respect and Recognition"... no pure unadulterated love.

Because indeed, when you are "uncomfortable" with someone it just means you actually really love them.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Amusing to see BPC call LA evil to support Wiggins.

I also see that you are saying that Wiggins (2.0 version) is angry as Armstrong doped on his return, which is odd as Armstrong denies he doped on his return.

 

[armchairclimber]

Uhm, he points out facts and contradictions... as you can't deflect them you want him to stop responding?

Faith trumps facts?

No, I'd just prefer him to respond in a manner that's more consistent with his generally grown up persona on here.

I have no interest in convincing anybody in the "does Brad dope or not"? debate. Positions are pretty much entrenched in the clinic, one way or another. The points I've been making in this thread relate to Wiggins and his media interviews. I doubt he was aiming his pitch at the clinic but at a broader constituency. The fact is, we are insignificant in here in the grand scheme of things.

He's contrary. He's a tw@t sometimes...I prefer it that way. I'll take inconsistency if I think it's coming straight off the bat.

I'll repeat (again) I'm glad he is making strong statements now....better late than never. Let's hear some others.

Think about the moment he brought his son into his statements. He really didn't need to do that. He could have done his "feck Lance" bit without talking about his own son and the smugness of knowing that he won't ever have to explain his doping to him. Just think about that for a minute. That's a powerful thing to do....and an immensely stupid thing to do if he is doping. I don't think he said it to "win over" any clinic sceptics....I think it was a genuine reflection.

Oh, and the hills did call. I answered. Now I'm back here.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So, yes, whilst riders like Wiggins were uncomfortable with the doping of that era, it was a settled issue by 09 that Armstrong had won those tours and he was, at least, the best of that dirty era. At the time, there was a general attitude of 'let bygones be bygones and celebrate the good he has done for the sport'. Human beings do that sort of thing - put settled issues aside and focus on the greater good. And the atmosphere of glasnost was huge - not just for riders who grew up watching Armstrong so were star struck, like Wiggins, but former critics in the peloton like Robbie McEwen and Chris Horner were burying the hatchet. The French public and French politicians were less hostile, journalists were less sniffy, people liked his new role as the old underdog. The tour had been pretty crappy for the last few years so there was a sense of nostalgia - the irritation of this American dominating had gone. Away from a couple of people on the internet, it was very much a love in. That was the context of 09.

Now, was this 100% rational? Would star trek's Dr Spock approve? Well, no, of course not. But that's not how human beings operate. Neither is the criticism that Armstrong receives today 100% rational; the mainstream media is scapegoating him as especially evil and a great fraud for doing what most of them were doing at the time. We know that's not really true, but it would take quite a brave individual to stand up against the prevailing mood and demand Armstrong not be singled out and given more respect and understanding. Yeah, Bradley Wiggins has somewhat been forced by the public mood to put aside his star struck attitude and focus on the side of him that disapproves of doping and relate that to Armstrong. Of course that is playing a part. It doesn't really make him a hypocrite. And if Wiggins is clean, and I think is he, why the hell would he not want to spell that out by distancing himself from Armstrong? If he didn't, you'd all be claiming he was dirty. So please, lets grow up a bit here.

If he was clean, and knew Armstrong had at some point not been, he could have, you know, not nailed his colours to that mast in public. What he and Lance say about one another in private is fine and he can be starstruck all he wants, but in public interviews, if he's clean and was uncomfortable with the doping of the era, then it's PR idiocy to come out in such support of Armstrong, because it means that if you give a heartfelt or emotional response to the fallout of the Armstrong saga, you come across as either a naïve idiot who couldn't see what was right in front of his face (especially since Vaughters confirmed he knew), or a hypocrite.

Wiggins may have had reservations, but he ultimately committed to Team Armstrong in the media battle. He fought valiantly for his side, repeating the never tested positive mantra and attacking Floyd as not being credible, even though he did couch this in some cautious language. However, it must be confirmed, Team Armstrong lost. Now Wiggins is trying to plead his case that he wasn't all that in on Team Armstrong.

 

[bianchigirl]

oh come on - he used his son to distance himself from Armstrong. Remember Armstrong's SCA declaration about what he would lose if he doped? Ever read Wiggins almost identical statement published in the Guaran?

It's called hubris

 

[bianchigirl]

T&R you say Wiggins remarks on the Verbier are in hindsight yet you take his assertions from his 2012 book that he always knew Armstrong was doping as gospel? Maybe need to get your timeline sorted out there?

 

[Truth&Reconciliation]

If he was clean, and knew Armstrong had at some point not been, he could have, you know, not nailed his colours to that mast in public. What he and Lance say about one another in private is fine and he can be starstruck all he wants, but in public interviews, if he's clean and was uncomfortable with the doping of the era, then it's PR idiocy to come out in such support of Armstrong, because it means that if you give a heartfelt or emotional response to the fallout of the Armstrong saga, you come across as either a naïve idiot who couldn't see what was right in front of his face (especially since Vaughters confirmed he knew), or a hypocrite.

Wiggins may have had reservations, but he ultimately committed to Team Armstrong in the media battle. He fought valiantly for his side, repeating the never tested positive mantra and attacking Floyd as not being credible, even though he did couch this in some cautious language. However, it must be confirmed, Team Armstrong lost. Now Wiggins is trying to plead his case that he wasn't all that in on Team Armstrong.

Not really. He has said that it was doping during the comeback, robbing him of his place on the podium, that made him feel personal anger. I can understand why he would feel that way after being forced to confront this reality. That is where the personal remarks come from. He always understood the realities of Armstrong's era and was uncomfortable with how teams had to dope, but it was a settled issue by 09. Nobody was going to take Armstrong's wins away - and who would they give them to anyway? - so nearly everybody decided to put that to one side and focus on what a great Armstrong had been. Nostaliga was huge. Wiggins was willing to give Armstrong the benefit of the doubt on the comeback due to knowing personally that it is possible for teams to do it clean in this era. By 2010, Wiggins himself had been accused of doping so this will have given him a new perspective on the malicious nature of some doping gossip. The reaction to his own blood profile, purposely published after the 09 tour to show how clean he was, must have been a rude awakening.

USADA forced the issue to a head and something that was put to the back of his mind is now on the table. I think he has been very honest about his conflicting feelings - wanting to believe Armstrong so badly, remembering how much of an icon he was as a young rider. If other riders came out, they would be forced into focus as well and we'd all have to mull over what they did. That is how it works. That's not up to Bradley Wiggins.

As a tour winner himself, Armstrong getting caught directly effects his own reputation and achievements - what Armstrong and the peloton did during that era directly effects him. That must make him angry because he has to defend himself. But I wouldn't overstate this 'anger' business. The interviews I have seen, including the one for cycling news, he seems pretty calm and collected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKPF-6XoBYk&feature=player_embedded

 

[Ninety5rpm]

What angered [Wiggins] was the revelation that Armstrong doped on the comeback.

What revelation that Armstrong doped on the comeback? What was revealed recently about that that Wiggins didn't know before?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not really. He has said that it was doping during the comeback, robbing him of his place on the podium, that made him feel personal anger. I can understand why he would feel that way after being forced to confront this reality. That is where the personal remarks come from. He always understood the realities of Armstrong's era and was uncomfortable with how teams had to dope, but it was a settled issue by 09. Nobody was going to take Armstrong's wins away - and who would they give them to anyway? - so nearly everybody decided to put that to one side and focus on what a great Armstrong had been. Nostaliga was huge. Wiggins was willing to give Armstrong the benefit of the doubt on the comeback due to knowing personally that it is possible for teams to do it clean in this era. By 2010, Wiggins himself had been accused of doping so this will have given him a new perspective on the malicious nature of some doping gossip. The reaction to his own blood profile, purposely published after the 09 tour to show how clean he was, must have been a rude awakening.

USADA forced the issue to a head and something that was put to the back of his mind is now on the table. I think he has been very honest about his conflicting feelings - wanting to believe Armstrong so badly, remembering how much of an icon he was as a young rider. If other riders came out, they would be forced into focus as well and we'd all have to mull over what they did. That is how it works. That's not up to Bradley Wiggins.

As a tour winner himself, Armstrong getting caught directly effects his own reputation and achievements - what Armstrong and the peloton did during that era directly effects him. That must make him angry because he has to defend himself. But I wouldn't overstate this 'anger' business. The interviews I have seen, including the one for cycling news, he seems pretty calm and collected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKPF-6XoBYk&feature=player_embedded

Your Lance still denies that he doped for comeback 2 point oh oh.
So, why would Bradley feel robbed of a podium??

 

[Truth&Reconciliation]

What revelation that Armstrong doped on the comeback? What was revealed recently about that that Wiggins didn't know before?

The revelation must have come from the USADA's official analysis of the blood profiles, and the continued links with Dr Ferrari. I noticed Cavendish also mentioned this quote about "one in a million chance". Maybe they discussed it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

The revelation must have come from the USADA's official analysis of the blood profiles, and the continued links with Dr Ferrari. I noticed Cavendish also mentioned this quote about "one in a million chance". Maybe they discussed it.

The revelation appears to have come much earlier:

"What upset me the most was [Armstrong talking] about 2009-10 - I thought you lying *******," said Wiggins. "I can still remember going toe to toe with him and watching the man I saw on the top of Verbier in 2009 to the man I saw on the top of Ventoux a week later when we were in doping control together - it wasn't the same bike rider. You only have to watch the videos of how the guy was riding. I don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth any more."

 

[Truth&Reconciliation]

The revelation appears to have come much earlier:

I note a lot of people have made that error. The quote is about his feelings watching the interview. At the time he did not suspect Armstrong. When he finished the tour he was happy to say he was beaten by the better cyclist. But now from the evidence, he no longer believes that - it puts Armstrong's change in performance during the tour into perspective for him.

 

[Cyivel]

I note a lot of people have made that error. The quote is about his feelings watching the interview. At the time he did not suspect Armstrong. When he finished the tour he was happy to say he was beaten by the better cyclist. But now from the evidence, he no longer believes that - it puts Armstrong's change in performance during the tour into perspective for him.

Nope, he knew, sorry brother.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I note a lot of people have made that error. The quote is about his feelings watching the interview. At the time he did not suspect Armstrong. When he finished the tour he was happy to say he was beaten by the better cyclist. But now from the evidence, he no longer believes that - it puts Armstrong's change in performance during the tour into perspective for him.

So just to recap;
Brad knew LA doped up to 2005.
Brad thinks LA clean for return in 09.
Brad says he loves LA in 2010.
Brad finds out from reasoned decison that LA doped in 09 although there is nothing new revealed.
Lance denys doping in 09.
Brad doesnt believe him, Brad angry.

 

[thehog]

Brad in 2011 says Lance never tested postive. Most tested athlete ever. Especially since comeback.

 

[Truth&Reconciliation]

Brad in 2011 says Lance never tested postive. Most tested athlete ever. Especially since comeback.

Yes he always careful to make a dividing line between Armstrong's tour winning days and his comeback 4 years later. All you can do is give someone the benefit of the doubt until new evidence emerges. Brad has talked in the past how important is to his psychology to give all his competitors - not just Armstrong -the benefit of the doubt. Once you believe all your rivals are doping it can have a very negative effect on you. You're defeated before you start.

With Armstrong there may have been a double benefit of the doubt due to the aura he had in the sport. That is wholly understandable - he was until that point the greatest ever TdF champion. But the new evidence about the blood profile and connections to Ferrari finally put that to rest for Brad.

 

[Cyivel]

Brother T&R has been banned?

 

[cineteq]

Brother T&R has been banned?

After 7 posts.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

After 7 posts.

I'm sure we won't have long to wait until they return.

 

[cineteq]

So just to recap;
Brad knew LA doped up to 2005.
Brad thinks LA clean for return in 09.
Brad says he loves LA in 2010.
Brad finds out from reasoned decison that LA doped in 09 although there is nothing new revealed.
Lance denys doping in 09.
Brad doesnt believe him, Brad angry.

I think it's worthy to include in the recap 'he never rode with LA', perhaps last year TdF's explosion with the media . It's all related.

This too.

Brad in 2011 says Lance never tested postive. Most tested athlete ever. Especially since comeback.

 

[BroDeal]

Wiggins has been slinging the bull for a long time, even back when he was supposedly against doping. Here he is from 2007.

"I was really angry with Landis. It sickens me. He tested positive and then he was denying it. He took us riders for fools."

Does anyone think Landis' fellow riders thought he was not doping? It is not like Landis was trying to sucker his colleagues. Every single one of them knew what it took to win the Tour.

 

[oldcrank]

Sir BMW and Greg LeMond seem to totally agree on the
matter of the disgraced Lance Armstrong. I like that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Sir BMW and Greg LeMond seem to totally agree on the
matter of the disgraced Lance Armstrong. I like that.

I don't seem to recall Greg saying he loved him.