Wiggins, Clinic respect?

[del1962]

Yeah, let's get Landis! Not creditable. Bitter ex-doper!

Wiggins is clean! Lance never tested positive, 500 tests.

Really?

If USADA never happened Wiggins would still be telling us Lance was most tested even though Vaughters/CVV and others told Wiggins what occurred at USPS.

But Wiggins was keen to ensure he was protected by the UCI and Master Doper Lance.

How sad that the anti-doping advocate from 2007 was more than happy to drown the chief whistleblower for corruption in cycling.

How sad that you support these actions of the omertà.

Hoggie stop creating noise, a moderator has made a clain that Brad said that "USADA are a disgrace", we think the moderator is lying, we are asking him for evidence to back up his claim, not asking for Brads opinions on Lance.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Hoggie stop creating noise, a moderator has made a clain that Brad said that "USADA are a disgrace", we think the moderator is lying, we are asking him for evidence to back up his claim, not asking for Brads opinions on Lance.

Skrybabies on a mission, new movie! On IMAX soon peeps.

How about backing up that claim Sky is clean Delboy/man?

 

[del1962]

Skrybabies on a mission, new movie! On IMAX soon peeps.

How about backing up that claim Sky is clean Delboy/man?

More noise from another idiot, this is about a mod making stuff up,

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hoggie stop creating noise, a moderator has made a clain that Brad said that "USADA are a disgrace", we think the moderator is lying, we are asking him for evidence to back up his claim, not asking for Brads opinions on Lance.

It's quite interesting that you used quotation marks to quote Sittingbissons post.
Yet SB did not use quotation marks in reference to Wiggins, so why are you requesting a quote that never existed ?

 

[del1962]

It's quite interesting that you used quotation marks to quote Sittingbissons post.
Yet SB did not use quotation marks in reference to Wiggins, so why are you requesting a quote that never existed ?

Because Wiggins never said USADA are a disgrace or anything like that, amd someone who is a moderator is just making stuff up,

perhaps if you are so willing to defend Sittingbison, you could point to where Wiggins effectively said USADA are a disgrace

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Because Wiggins never said USADA are a disgrace or anything like that, amd someone who is a moderator is just making stuff up,

perhaps if you are so willing to defend Sittingbison, you could point to where Wiggins effectively said USADA are a disgrace

Well I was going to let SB defend themselves - but since you asked so nicely.

How do you know the mod is making stuff up?
You have not even waited to give this person a right to reply where they might admit a mistake or link to something.
Isn't that just you, making stuff up?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

More noise from another idiot, this is about a mod making stuff up,

Please, keep up with the namecalling, it does suite ya.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

You have not even waited to give this person a right to reply where they might admit a mistake or link to something.

RownhamHill asked SB to support the quote that he attributed to Wiggins - "USADA is a disgrace..." - on 28th Jan. See the last post on page 60. SB's original quote post is earlier on that page.

I think Pedro has asked him to justify the quote a few times subsequently as well.

 

[del1962]

Well I was going to let SB defend themselves - but since you asked so nicely.

How do you know the mod is making stuff up?
You have not even waited to give this person a right to reply where they might admit a mistake or link to something.
Isn't that just you, making stuff up?

Well I am waiting, nice attempted deflection though

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well I am waiting, nice attempted deflection though

Thanks.
You make it pretty easy though when you ask me to attempt find something that I did not claim.

Yours is pretty weak though, in fact if Im honest its really terrible - the not waiting and double standards thing is just going to kill you.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

RownhamHill asked SB to support the quote that he attributed to Wiggins - "USADA is a disgrace..." - on 28th Jan. See the last post on page 60. SB's original quote post is earlier on that page.

I think Pedro has asked him to justify the quote a few times subsequently as well.

The 28th of January? I see one SB reply - and then after that DontbelatePedro query's it once.

Until earlier today -a full 3 weeks later out of the blue, they ask again.
They should change their name to SorryImLatePedro

 

[Robert21]

Come on people, let's not blow this out of proportion. After all, Wiggins says so many inconsistent, self-contradictory, inadvisable, nonsensical and downright stupid things that it quite easy to become confused as to what he has and has not said since he became a Tour contender.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

The 28th of January? I see one SB reply - and then after that DontbelatePedro query's it once.

Until earlier today -a full 3 weeks later out of the blue, they ask again.
They should change their name to SorryImLatePedro

He's been asked by three people - RownhamHill, Pedro and Del. Rownham accused him of making it up on 30th Jan.

I doubt very much that SB missed all the questions and the accusation of "economy with the truth" (to be diplomatic), particularly as at the same time he posted to say that he was paraphrasing in places.

Join the dots!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

He's been asked by three people - RownhamHill, Pedro and Del. Rownham accused him of making it up on 30th Jan.

All done after they last posted here.
And not a peep until a few hours ago.

I doubt very much that SB missed all the questions and the accusation of "economy with the truth" (to be diplomatic), particularly as at the same time he posted to say that he was paraphrasing in places.

Join the dots!

I doubt, in fact I am certain - you have absolutely no way of knowing. None.

Of the 801 posts on this thread, SB posted twice in quick succession (29/30 Jan). Thats where the dots end - until Pedro suddenly remembered earlier today.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Because Wiggins never said USADA are a disgrace or anything like that, amd someone who is a moderator is just making stuff up,

Two **very** specific claims. One is probably wrong, the other is wrong. Not only are you jokers making stuff up, you are just adding to the chaos.

Not only did the controversy fabricators get the date of the post wrong, the reference to the manufactured controversy is to the Wiggins' twitter feed. I'm trying sort out what's what with twitter feeds.

If you want to believe on a religious scale despite overwhelming evidence, fine. Just don't make stuff up. Frankly, it eliminates any possibility Wiggins and the Sky grand tour squad is clean.

What year is this? Replace Wiggins' name with Wonderboy's and we've gone back in time to about 2009.

 

[del1962]

Two **very** specific claims. Neither one of which can be proven. Not only are you jokers making stuff up, you are just adding to the chaos.

Not only did the controversy fabricators get the date of the post wrong, the reference to the manufactured controversy is to the Wiggins' twitter feed. Right now, it is not public, so manufactured controversy is over.

If you want to believe on a religious scale despite overwhelming evidence, fine. Just don't make stuff up. Frankly, it eliminates any possibility Wiggins and the Sky grand tour squad is clean.

What year is this? Replace Wiggins' name with Wonderboy's and we've gone back in time to about 2009.

You said you would put me on your ignore list, shame you hadn't then I wouldn't have to read this rubbish

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

* Hoggie
* creating noise
* moderator is lying
* More noise from another idiot
* a moderator is just making stuff up
* nice attempted deflection
* rubbish

You have been busy today Del, or should we say you had an hour off today?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

You have not even waited to give this person a right to reply where they might admit a mistake or link to something.

The 28th of January? I see one SB reply - and then after that DontbelatePedro query's it once.

Until earlier today -a full 3 weeks later out of the blue, they ask again.
They should change their name to SorryImLatePedro

Make your mind up. Either we are not giving him enough time to answer or we are leaving it too long.

It is quite common for posters not to see questions aimed at them. I decided ample time had passed and decided to revisit the question.

This post from another thread seems relevant here.

The only people who get in a spat with me are people who don't back up what they write. They also often attempt to make personal remarks rather than backing up what they write which would clear up any situation.

I am just asking him to back up what he wrote. If indeed he meant Wiggins was questioning Landis' credibility that is a lot different to the bullet point

the witnesses are lyers

and I have yet to see one person explain away

USADA are a disgrace

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Make your mind up. Either we are not giving him enough time to answer or we are leaving it too long.

"We"??

Those responses were to 2 different people - i didnt realize you were a tag-team.

It is quite common for posters not to see questions aimed at them. I decided ample time had passed and decided to revisit the question.

This post from another thread seems relevant here.



I am just asking him to back up what he wrote. If indeed he meant Wiggins was questioning Landis' credibility that is a lot different to the bullet point


and I have yet to see one person explain away

Yet you still saw fit to comment before receiving a reply.

Besides general trolling, is there any particular reason why you would revisit something that was 3 weeks old?

 

[Parrulo]

seems like we are all having a good time ganging up on a mod here. . . . may i join in?

Like Dr. said SB post had no quotations marks so it was obvious he was just posting his interpretation of several interviews wiggins has given over the years, and by looking at his post every single one of them seems to be pretty close to many other posters got from those interviews, weather you agree with him or not is up to a personal opinion.

either way, mod or not, he isn't forced to provide the sources that lead him to think that and jumping up on him using the "he is a mod therefore he can't have an option and if he does he must back up every thing he says with sources and scientific studies" argument pretty much trying to bully him isn't something that pleases me.

i am willing to let this go away, inclusive the name calling that could be easily rewarded with a 1 week vacations if you guys calm down and stop ganging up on him because he is a "sky hater mod". if not i can think of some other ways to smoothly wash this away so have it your way.

between before you start ganging up on me, remember that first i don't care about it and that i didn't give my opinion at all on this subject and simply stopped a few posters from ganging up on a mod.

 

[JimmyFingers]

"We"??

Those responses were to 2 different people - i didnt realize you were a tag-team.


Yet you still saw fit to comment before receiving a reply.

Besides general trolling, is there any particular reason why you would revisit something that was 3 weeks old?

His reasons are his own,and he has no obligation to explain them to you, or does anyone else on this board. Perhaps your desperate need for attention might be better served elsewhere. I suggest mumsnet as a good statrt

 

[Dr. Maserati]

His reasons are his own,and he has no obligation to explain them to you, or does anyone else on this board. Perhaps your desperate need for attention might be better served elsewhere. I suggest mumsnet as a good statrt

Hi Jimmy.
I asked a question - thats all.
In the same way you have no obligation to respond, read or care about anything I write - but I respect your right to to whatever you wish.
Don't worry -thats where the respect ends. Toodles.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

"We"??
Those responses were to 2 different people - i didnt realize you were a tag-team.

They were to two different people but both were related to the timing of replies. It reads akin to the story of Goldilocks. The first post waited too long, the second expected an answer too quick. Pray tell, what is the exact time that is acceptable.

Yet you still saw fit to comment before receiving a reply.

This is a forum. I posted a response to another post. That is how these things normally work.

Besides general trolling, is there any particular reason why you would revisit something that was 3 weeks old?

Who is trolling? I am asking a question and I stated in my previous response why I revisited it. If you could not understand the reason the first time round I doubt explaining it a second is going to help.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

They were to two different people but both were related to the timing of replies. It reads akin to the story of Goldilocks. The first post waited too long, the second expected an answer too quick. Pray tell, what is the exact time that is acceptable.

When I responded to the first I did not know you had actually had dug up a 3 week old post.
You updated earlier today and expected a response within a short-time?

This is a forum. I posted a response to another post. That is how these things normally work.

Why didnt your response say that you were waiting for a reply?
Thats a response, thats how forums work.

Who is trolling? I am asking a question and I stated in my previous response why I revisited it. If you could not understand the reason the first time round I doubt explaining it a second is going to help.

You - you are trolling.

if you had a genuine wish for an answer you would have waited until a reply was given today before responding.

A quick and easy question - if you were looking for an answer from SB then I assume you would have asked by PM or highlighted that you brought up a post from 3 weeks ago.
Did you PM SB?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Like Dr. said SB post had no quotations marks so it was obvious he was just posting his interpretation of several interviews wiggins has given over the years, and by looking at his post every single one of them seems to be pretty close to many other posters got from those interviews, weather you agree with him or not is up to a personal opinion.

either way, mod or not, he isn't forced to provide the sources that lead him to think that and jumping up on him using the "he is a mod therefore he can't have an option and if he does he must back up every thing he says with sources and scientific studies" argument pretty much trying to bully him isn't something that pleases me.

So where does interpretation start and universal truth end? I am questioning how he came to his interpretation. If he does not care to answer, fine.

for the rest of you, I have clearly paraphrased his comments to demonstrate a timeline of changed attitudes, they are all extremely well known and discussed at length here and elsewhere, look them up yourself. His comments during USADA included.

He said the comments were extremely well known. I tried to look them up but found nothing hence my question. No one else has chimed in with Wiggins alluding to USADA being a disgrace so they don't appear to be that well known.

i am willing to let this go away, inclusive the name calling that could be easily rewarded with a 1 week vacations if you guys calm down and stop ganging up on him because he is a "sky hater mod". if not i can think of some other ways to smoothly wash this away so have it your way.

between before you start ganging up on me, remember that first i don't care about it and that i didn't give my opinion at all on this subject and simply stopped a few posters from ganging up on a mod.

Plenty of other mods (and posters) have a negative opinion of Sky so I don't think it is purely related to that.