• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Bat Man said:
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?

.
There are more dopers in the sport than Lance Armstrong. Not all of them displayed exactly the same thought proccess and behaviour as him. To suggest that anyone who's behaviour doesn't closely match and mirror that of Lance Armstrong, must be clean, is ridiculous.
 
Dec 29, 2009
399
0
0
Joachim said:
Very easy for a bunch of internet warriors to come out with the sort of stuff you guys are (anonymously) but this is Wiggins work environment, not a school playground. He's shown the tact and diplomacy one would expect of a Tour champion. He's a public figure ffs, not some internet troll with nothing riding on it. Besides, he doesn't have to say anything. It wasn't him that doped for 7 Tours and dragged the sport into the gutter.

If I was in his position, I wouldn't have shot my mouth off until the appropriate moment either.
why does he have such a potty mouth? don't recall big mig ever talking like that. maybe a lack of class or intelligence? and then he keeps bringing up his son.
 
Joachim said:
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.
Drop the "anonymous" thing, Joachim. It's meaningless. Most of us are simple fans and our names mean zilch to anybody. It's a very weak argument.
 
Dec 22, 2012
580
0
0
The Hitch said:
There are more dopers in the sport than Lance Armstrong. Not all of them displayed exactly the same thought proccess and behaviour as him. To suggest that anyone who's behaviour doesn't closely match and mirror that of Lance Armstrong, must be clean, is ridiculous.
The opposite of that is also ridiculous, and yet it is common currency on this sub-forum.
 
Dec 22, 2012
580
0
0
hrotha said:
Drop the "anonymous" thing, Joachim. It's meaningless. Most of us are simple fans and our names mean zilch to anybody. It's a very weak argument.
Nah. It's central. You are anonymous. He is not. You can say what you like with total impunity. He cannot.
 
Joachim said:
Nah. It's central. You are anonymous. He is not. You can say what you like with total impunity. He cannot.
Actually, I'm not anonymous. I already revealed my name the last time this popped up, and then I went and called him a ****.

Didn't change anything.

And the impunity is the same. If I did anything illegal behind this screenname, I could be traced easily.
 
Bat Man said:
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.
But what is very noticeable is that Wiggins' strongest anti-doping statements came when he was not a big name, and how badly he reacted to being judged by the standards he set himself.
Wiggins 2007: Tour winners for the next six years should accept that they will be seen as suspect and with reason.
Wiggins 2012: Tour winners are f***ing clean and anybody who doesn't f***ing believe in me is a f***ing w*****.
Wiggins 2007: Any team with anybody with a 1% suspicion of doping should be kicked out the race.
Wiggins 2012: Any team with a doctor who has been named in court documents as being involved in doping should be above suspicion because they said they were clean.
Wiggins 2007: Vino is a doping joke, I mean winning the Tour ITT by two minutes is a sign of obvious doping.
Wiggins 2012: Hey, Chris was within 2 minutes, which only goes to show how wonderful and clean I am!

Yes, people change over time. But the way Wiggins snapped at people for voicing what used to be his own opinion is concerning. He's done more than one U-turn over Armstrong, and this last one is in what we would consider the correct direction... but his U-turn on what he formerly considered healthy suspicion is in the opposite direction. Bradley Wiggins, in his current position as a semi-patron and an unofficial spokesman for the péloton, is filled with awkward, difficult contradictions, conflicts and ambiguities who has to reconcile a maze of contradictory opinions that he has spouted at various times to various audiences with a wildly varying cast of characters in behind him. After all, he rode with Millar in 2009, there was more than a 1% chance about him. Maybe Leinders told Brad he was sorry, just like Millar, so that was enough to make him OK.

Wiggins' tendency to be wilfully contrary and wind people up also makes it harder to tell where he stands. There are far too many contradictions in his soundbites over all of the issues for us to be able to take anything he says as read without closer scrutiny and assessment against other things he's said.

For example, if he came out tomorrow and said doping doctors were the scourge of the sport and ridding it of them is far more important than ridding it of doping riders as it would make progress to a clean péloton much faster, we might consider it fits with his 2007 self's comments about 1% suspicion, and we might agree with him but consider him a complete hypocrite considering the lack of remorse about calling people names for suspecting Sky when one of said doping doctors was on his team. Wiggins says plenty which is agreeable to much of the Clinic - but also disagreeable to his own statements at other times, which makes trusting him on his word very difficult to do.
 
Jan 21, 2013
33
0
0
The Hitch said:
There are more dopers in the sport than Lance Armstrong. Not all of them displayed exactly the same thought proccess and behaviour as him. To suggest that anyone who's behaviour doesn't closely match and mirror that of Lance Armstrong, must be clean, is ridiculous.
That's not quite what I'm saying. Armstrong is known to have been more outspoken than most in his denials of doping. But even his answers did have a formula to them, occasional hidden messages. There is none of that with Wiggins. If Armstrong lied in a sociopathic manner, Wiggins' denials would have to be even more extreme than this - a pure psychopath. It doesn't add up. If I'd been smearing him as a doper, I'd be feeling very guilty right now.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Cycle Chic said:
Well he's had plenty of time to put that one together...took his time but the SKY staff have finally woken up and smelled the Clinic
Fixed free of charge!
 
Dec 22, 2012
580
0
0
hrotha said:
Actually, I'm not anonymous. I already revealed my name the last time this popped up,
Can you prove publicly it was your actual name? Would you be prepared to write to Sky with your views under your own name?

Most here wouldn't, because they are able to sit here, in a priviledged position, smearing and sneering at whoever they want.

And the impunity is the same. If I did anything illegal behind this screenname, I could be traced easily.
Use your own name then
 
Jul 13, 2012
253
0
0
erader said:
why does he have such a potty mouth? don't recall big mig ever talking like that. maybe a lack of class or intelligence? and then he keeps bringing up his son.
I don't think his use of colourful language is a sign of anything. Just the way he expresses himself using the full breadth and width of the English swear word. The English love to swear:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_osQvkeNRM
 
Jan 21, 2013
33
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
But what is very noticeable is that Wiggins' strongest anti-doping statements came when he was not a big name, and how badly he reacted to being judged by the standards he set himself.
Wiggins 2007: Tour winners for the next six years should accept that they will be seen as suspect and with reason.
Wiggins 2012: Tour winners are f***ing clean and anybody who doesn't f***ing believe in me is a f***ing w*****.
Wiggins 2007: Any team with anybody with a 1% suspicion of doping should be kicked out the race.
Wiggins 2012: Any team with a doctor who has been named in court documents as being involved in doping should be above suspicion because they said they were clean.
Wiggins 2007: Vino is a doping joke, I mean winning the Tour ITT by two minutes is a sign of obvious doping.
Wiggins 2012: Hey, Chris was within 2 minutes, which only goes to show how wonderful and clean I am!

Yes, people change over time. But the way Wiggins snapped at people for voicing what used to be his own opinion is concerning. He's done more than one U-turn over Armstrong, and this last one is in what we would consider the correct direction... but his U-turn on what he formerly considered healthy suspicion is in the opposite direction. Bradley Wiggins, in his current position as a semi-patron and an unofficial spokesman for the péloton, is filled with awkward, difficult contradictions, conflicts and ambiguities who has to reconcile a maze of contradictory opinions that he has spouted at various times to various audiences with a wildly varying cast of characters in behind him. After all, he rode with Millar in 2009, there was more than a 1% chance about him. Maybe Leinders told Brad he was sorry, just like Millar, so that was enough to make him OK.

Wiggins' tendency to be wilfully contrary and wind people up also makes it harder to tell where he stands. There are far too many contradictions in his soundbites over all of the issues for us to be able to take anything he says as read without closer scrutiny and assessment against other things he's said.

For example, if he came out tomorrow and said doping doctors were the scourge of the sport and ridding it of them is far more important than ridding it of doping riders as it would make progress to a clean péloton much faster, we might consider it fits with his 2007 self's comments about 1% suspicion, and we might agree with him but consider him a complete hypocrite considering the lack of remorse about calling people names for suspecting Sky when one of said doping doctors was on his team. Wiggins says plenty which is agreeable to much of the Clinic - but also disagreeable to his own statements at other times, which makes trusting him on his word very difficult to do.
He'd just been thrown off the tour in 07 and was clearly emotional. To present that distressed state as "the way he used to be about doping" is simplistic because it ignores the context of what had happened.

Armstrong had won 7 tours in a row. He held a huge place in the sport so other riders felt he needed greater respect. He wasn't just some punk kid like Ricco who had never done anything. Therefore there was a great sense that they must allow all the processes to play out, and hear from the man himself, before rushing to judgment. In reality that is understandable
 
Bat Man said:
He'd just been thrown off the tour in 07 and was clearly emotional. To present that distressed state as "the way he used to be about doping" is simplistic because it ignores the context of what had happened.

Armstrong had won 7 tours in a row. He held a huge place in the sport so other riders felt he needed greater respect. He wasn't just some punk kid like Ricco who had never done anything. Therefore there was a great sense that they must allow all the processes to play out, and hear from the man himself, before rushing to judgment. In reality that is understandable
Being quoted on the record as saying "I love him" goes beyond the call of allowing all the processes to play out.

Or are you saying that Wiggins wasn't actually as anti-doping as he suggested in 2007?
 
Joachim said:
Can you prove publicly it was your actual name? Would you be prepared to write to Sky with your views under your own name?

Most here wouldn't, because they are able to sit here, in a priviledged position, smearing and sneering at whoever they want.
Do you want me to show my ID card or something? What good would that do? The point is I'm a nobody. What I say carries the same weight whether or not I use my actual name.

That said, I have commented on CN's Facebook page with my real name. Pfff. Big deal.

Again, if I said anything Sky feel should be prosecuted, a username wouldn't protect me or anyone else. So what's the point?

There are a few people here who are actually notable. Few of them use their actual names, even though everybody knows who they are (TexPat, JV1973, etc). They use handles because that's how this works. Simple as.
Use your own name then
That would be pointless. This is not how the internet works. I like my username.
 
Jan 21, 2013
33
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Being quoted on the record as saying "I love him" goes beyond the call of allowing all the processes to play out.

Or are you saying that Wiggins wasn't actually as anti-doping as he suggested in 2007?
Well he wasn't going around threatening to punch dopers all the time. He'd just been arrested and thrown out of the tour - that was a unique event. It must be seen in that context. Wiggins has always been the type to mind his own business and not get involved in politics - he hates the idea of being a spokeman for anything.

Armstrong was a great of the sport - it would be hard to find many pro cyclists that didn't revear him on some level. People forget that his enemies - the people he crossed - were a relevatively small group of people and did not represent the general attitude of his peers. Unless you were one of these victims, you tended to think the guy was god on the bike - he won the tour every year!
 
Dec 22, 2012
580
0
0
hrotha said:
That would be pointless. This is not how the internet works. I like my username.
You know that because you are inconsequential (sorry, that sounds terrible :D) that the chances of you invoking any litigious activity, or indeed any negative consequence to you, are minute.

Not so for Wiggins, should he start uttering slanderous comments, and this is apposite when considering how far Wiggins should go in condemning those not yet formally proven guilty.

This puts you in a massively priviledged position over him. Hence his annoyance.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
Wiggins 2007: Vino is a doping joke, I mean winning the Tour ITT by two minutes is a sign of obvious doping.
Wiggins 2012: Hey, Chris was within 2 minutes, which only goes to show how wonderful and clean I am!
Cancellara - absent
Martin - absent
Phinney - absent
Pinotti - absent
Durbridge - absent
Larsson - absent

He won by two minutes because there was hardly anyone there
 
Joachim said:
You know that because you are inconsequential (sorry, that sounds terrible :D) that the chances of you invoking any litigious activity, or indeed any negative consequence to you, are minute.

Not so for Wiggins, should he start uttering slanderous comments, and this is apposite when considering how far Wiggins should go in condemning those not yet formally proven guilty.
This again?

There's a difference between not slandering Armstrong in public and actually coming out publicly with supportive comments.
 
Mar 6, 2009
3,488
1
0
Bat Man said:
Well he wasn't going around threatening to punch dopers all the time. He'd just been arrested and thrown out of the tour - that was a unique event. It must be seen in that context. Wiggins has always been the type to mind his own business and not get involved in politics - he hates the idea of being a spokeman for anything.

Armstrong was a great of the sport - it would be hard to find many pro cyclists that didn't revear him on some level. People forget that his enemies - the people he crossed - were a relevatively small group of people and did not represent the general attitude of his peers. Unless you were one of these victims, you tended to think the guy was god on the bike - he won the tour every year!
The French riders!!!

I am sure there were lots of guys who didn't think Armstrong was amazing but they sure as hell wanted to keep on the right side of him. As you said, as long as you didn't cross him you were ok. Fearing someone is not the same as respecting them or revering them.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS