Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Bat Man said:
To be fair to Wiggins, he didn't know if Armstrong was doping on the comeback. Vaughters hadn't rode with Armstrong since 1999. Not many people seem to listen to Vaughters anyway - he part owned the team with Millar - Millar must have known EVERYTHING - yet Millar remained friends with Armstrong until about a year ago.
I'm sure 2007 Wiggins would find that justification to be ********. He may not have known for sure whether Armstrong was doping in 2009, but he knew about his past, about his lies and about everything else.

And the bit about Millar doesn't help, it just puts Saint David in a bad light.
 
Joachim said:
Might that possibly be because he's only been a Tour winner since last august?

;)
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?
 
Dec 22, 2012
580
0
0
hrotha said:
I'm talking about Wiggins's stance before Armstrong confessed, of course.

Wiggins knew Armstrong doped. Everyone at Garmin was supposed to know the story. JV himself posted here to say when Wiggins first defended Armstrong he found it baffling (he said his comments "weren't based on reality" or something like that). Wiggins himself admits the Armstrong he saw later in the 2009 Tour was very suspicious. Whatever way you spin it, Wiggins was openly praising someone he knew to be a doper, and only backtracked when Armstrong's fall was complete.
Yes, there has been a movement in what Wiggins has said, but of course there has been a corresponding movement of Wiggins's position in the peloton.

I think Wiggins view prior to last autumns events, and Armstrongs confession was that he didn't care enough to be vociferous about it because he personally didn't feel cheated by Armstrong. He was nowhere near him in the GC.

This is why last autumn he was pretty clear that he would be mightily p1ssed if Armstrong had cheated in 09 because it cost him a podium place.
 
Jan 21, 2013
33
0
0
hrotha said:
I'm sure 2007 Wiggins would find that justification to be ********. He may not have known for sure whether Armstrong was doping in 2009, but he knew about his past, about his lies and about everything else.

And the bit about Millar doesn't help, it just puts Saint David in a bad light.
He was not a leading tour cyclist in 07. When you're part of the elite club, you have to be more responsible in how you address other riders. You'd never win a race if you didn't.

I think when the emotion dies down Wiggins will have more sympathy for Armstrong. It's easy now to take everything did personally and join in with the ignorance of the general public, to play the 'what if' game.
 
Dec 22, 2012
580
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Seem fair?
I'd pretty much agree with that assessment. I'd add that it's strange that we expect sportsmen to also be politicians. The guy just wants to ride his bike, try and win, and get p1ssed up afterwards, and maybe have the odd toke. He has been pretty clear about his discomfort with celebrity and gives the impression of someone who would rather be left alone. Polar opposite to LA.

I think if you suspend disbelief for a moment and assume he is clean, his angry outbursts at doping gossip directed at him and also about constantly being asked about doping in general, make perfect sense.

Of course, they make sense too if he is doping.

(sorry, bit Off topic)
 
Jul 21, 2012
6,664
0
0
"That was the thing that upset me the most about 2009 and 2010. I thought you lying *******. I can still remember going toe-to-toe with him, watching him and his body language. The man I saw at the top of Verbier in 2009 to the man I saw on the top of Ventoux two weeks later, it wasn't the same bike rider. Watch the videos and see the way the guy was riding. I just don't believe anything that comes out of his mouth anymore," said Wiggins.
So lance was clean on Verbier since Wiggo could keep up with him, but doped to the eyeballs two weeks later?
 
Joachim said:
I think Wiggins view prior to last autumns events, and Armstrongs confession was that he didn't care enough to be vociferous about it because he personally didn't feel cheated by Armstrong. He was nowhere near him in the GC.
Once again trying to spin " I love Lance" and all the other praise that wiggins threw armstrongs way as a neutral and apathetic stance :rolleyes:
 
Dec 22, 2012
580
0
0
The Hitch said:
Thats a pretty weak defense for why you attacked people who legitimately critiscise wiggins previous comments as "internet trolls".
To be honest with you, I don't really care.

Sorry.
 
May 24, 2011
32
0
0
Bet it's a whole different ball games when Armstrong lies directly to you in person, and such a big lie too. That's a a lot to process, never mind the rest of the circus that went on.

What's easier to imagination is how Bradders might get so fed up with the rubbish that gets said about him in places like this he'll tell an obvious untruth that's ridiculously easy to catch him out on - like saying he never rode a Tour against LA - just to screw around with those salivating loonies who've already decided he MUST be doping.
He's an awkward customer like that.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
Note how Wiggins doesn't mention the UCI, Bruyneel, or anybody.

Lance did great damage to cycling.

All by himself.
 
Dec 22, 2012
580
0
0
@tibetan hat I doubt that very much, but what I would say is that I doubt he has gone out of his way to comment on Armstrong, it isn't unsolicited. Somebody has stuck a microphone in his face.
 
Dec 22, 2012
580
0
0
sniper said:
Note how Wiggins doesn't mention the UCI, Bruyneel, .
If you look at your Lance DVDs really carefully you'll see it was Lance on the bike and on the podium. Not Bruyneel, not the UcI.

Of course he's not going to comment on the UCI. How can he, nothing has been proven yet.
 
Feb 10, 2010
8,095
0
0
the sceptic said:
So lance was clean on Verbier since Wiggo could keep up with him, but doped to the eyeballs two weeks later?
That makes perfect sense.... In Pro Cycling... Where down is up because of all the doping, corruption and whatnot.:D

Wiggo officially applied for victim status and simply forgotten his past defense efforts like so many other defenders.
 
Jan 21, 2013
33
0
0
Joachim said:
I think if you suspend disbelief for a moment and assume he is clean, his angry outbursts at doping gossip directed at him and also about constantly being asked about doping in general, make perfect sense.
No question in my mind Wiggins is clean. If you watch him interviewed, his answeres are not calculated. The things he says are much more of a denial than Armstrong's formulaic defenses. Armstrong would play cremlinology in some of things he said, as if he was talking to two audience. Classic case was at the ToC with Kimmage, where he answered by saying doping has always gone on - clearly implying that he's carrying on a tradition. That's the way he would always answer the question. And he said "some people" thought it was good Millar confessed, again implying that was not his view. For those paying attention, it was clear he thought doping should play a role in the sport. With Wiggins there is none of that. Why in the world would Wiggins talk about watching Armstrong having to admit to his children about doping, and talk about his own kid?

If I'd been going around for the last few years smearing Wiggins as a doper, I would be thinking about going on Oprah to say a few things in the spirit of truth and reconciliation.
 
Aug 13, 2010
2,443
0
0
sniper said:
Note how Wiggins doesn't mention the UCI, Bruyneel, or anybody.

Lance did great damage to cycling.

All by himself.
You make a good point. I also noticed he did not mention racism, sexism, homophobia and just didn't explain just why the Higgs-Boson really is all that important.
 
Jan 29, 2010
416
0
0
the asian said:
He even once said that he didn't even ride the Tour with Armstrong.

Glad that at least he has regained his memory.
When did Wiggins say that? I recall other people saying it, but I never saw it directly attributed to Wiggins.

Can anyone clear that up for me? A link to a story with Wiggins saying that would be great.
 
Dec 22, 2012
580
0
0
If i knew he was not a doper, then frankly I'd agree with his assessment of those brave anonymous Internet critics.

Thing is, we'll never know.
 
sniper said:
Note how Wiggins doesn't mention the UCI, Bruyneel, or anybody.

Lance did great damage to cycling.

All by himself.
This is from an interview yesterday:

"I'm not interested in what happens to Lance," Wiggins said. "My worry is in what state this scandal leaves cycling.
"Where have Pat McQuaid and all the others brought this sport? Certainly not in a great position, especially for the riders racing now. Our credibility is on the line."
http://www.espn.co.uk/football/sport/story/189591.html
 
The Tibetan Hat said:
Bet it's a whole different ball games when Armstrong lies directly to you in person, and such a big lie too. That's a a lot to process, never mind the rest of the circus that went on.

What's easier to imagination is how Bradders might get so fed up with the rubbish that gets said about him in places like this he'll tell an obvious untruth that's ridiculously easy to catch him out on - like saying he never rode a Tour against LA - just to screw around with those salivating loonies who've already decided he MUST be doping.
He's an awkward customer like that.
Sorry what rubbish? That he was a very poor gc rider who couldnt get anywhere near the top 100 who suddenly returns to the sport a major gc contender and eventual tdf winner?

Yeah what rubbish. He was fighting for the podium in 2006 and 2007 wasnt he?

And he certainly never said any "rubbish" about other riders like saying that TDF winners should accept suspicion and implying by proxy that Carlos Sastre was not a clean tdf winner.


sniper said:
Note how Wiggins doesn't mention the UCI, Bruyneel, or anybody.

Lance did great damage to cycling.

All by himself.
Oh dont take this too far again. His comments on Lance are valid because of the humerous change of stance they represent. The UCI is a completely different issue.
 
May 7, 2009
1,211
0
0
RE: Sky, I remain skeptical. Especially with Wiggan's past comments and the hiring of the doping doctor.

Plus, who can help but become jaded after they have lied to the world for all these years.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. :cool:
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY