Wiggins, Clinic respect?

[Dear Wiggo]

SittingBison,

Call me pedantic if you must, but this is the paraphrased quote you attributed to Wiggo at the start of this farago:

"USADA are a disgrace, the witnesses are lyers, Lance is great."

And this is what you just posted as the basis for the above paraphrased quote:

"...that they had no right to prosecute Lance, that witnesses are liars, that there was no evidence, he had not failed a test despite being tested 500 times [bla bla bla]."

I fail to see how you can logically get to the "USADA are a disgrace" bit from the text in bold. There is a heavy element of yor personal interpretation/bias in this step. Whether this is "making it up", I'll let others judge.

If I think USADA have no right to prosecute Lance, and are doing so based on false testimony (witnesses are liars) and no evidence / positive tests and I think Lance is great, the best thing since sliced banana bread for cycling, then IT IS completely and totally reasonable to interpret this as:

I think USADA are a disgrace.

I mean. WTF else are you going to think of USADA given the above? That they are a bunch of cool froods who all know where their towels are and you wanna invite them around for high tea?

Get a grip.

I am really dismayed that you cannot make that connection.

And no matter what anyone else says, you should really drop this, before the thread is closed, unless of course, that is your intent.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

Even on an internetforum Sky attacks are predictable, boring, well prepared but humanly possible.

Brilliant! That has made the entire thread, and the main Sky one worthwhile!

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

And no matter what anyone else says, you should really drop this, before the thread is closed, unless of course, that is your intent.

My intent is the exchange of facts, logical deductions and good arguments.

F*ck knows why I bother coming here. I guess I like to be entertained as well.

 

[sittingbison]

I have explained myself fully, its your right to disagree with what I say, but thats the end of it. I shall not be commenting further on this issue.

In mod mode:

This thread WILL get closed, and not by me. We have all been warned by Parrulo. Please desist

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

This thread WILL get closed, and not by me. We have all been warned by Parrulo. Please desist

This is a disgrace.

 

[del1962]

I have tried to find through google where BW says USADA should not go after Lance, normally I have good google skills but I may be slipping, though to me it seems some mods are squirming

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

This is a disgrace.

And this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...kx-My-Tour-France-heroes-Bradley-Wiggins.html

?
june 23 2012

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

And this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mos...kx-My-Tour-France-heroes-Bradley-Wiggins.html

?
june 23 2012

Obviously it could be Wiggins actually writing it but in many of these columns it is written by a ghost writer.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Obviously it could be Wiggins actually writing it but in many of these columns it is written by a ghost writer.

A lot of dopers, so yes, it must have been a ghostwriter given Brad's stance on doping.

''Seven consecutive Tour de France wins says it all but Lance was not someone who inspired me in the same way as the other names here. He was one of the fiercest rivals I’ve ever faced. To go toe-to-toe with him in 2009 was a dream come true. He revolutionised the sport and brought it to a much wider audience. His cancer survival story is incredible, and the sport has a great deal to thank him for – not least for raising its profile so that big sponsors are attracted to it.''

Those could never be the words of Brad. Must be a ghostwriter.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

A lot of dopers, so yes, it must have been a ghostwriter given Brad's stance on doping.

Armstrong aside I think many people would pick at least a few of those riders as cycling heroes even though they have been caught doping or very much associated with it.

Many people love Pantani even though they know he doped.

I grew up watching Robert Millar. I would consider him a cycling hero even though he doped.

 

[Benotti69]

Armstrong aside I think many people would pick at least a few of those riders as cycling heroes even though they have been caught doping or very much associated with it.

Many people love Pantani even though they know he doped.

I grew up watching Robert Millar. I would consider him a cycling hero even though he doped.

If you saw that Millar had a similar personality(bullying, socipathic, etc )to Armstrong I bet you would no longer consider him a hero.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

If you saw that Millar had a similar personality(bullying, socipathic, etc )to Armstrong I bet you would no longer consider him a hero.

Without a doubt and I am not defending Wiggins' stance on applauding Armtstrong. You can't.

My points are that

a) There is a reasonable chance this is a ghost written article.
b) If you were to pick your cycling heroes there is (imo) a reasonable chance there would be a number of dopers in there.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Even on an internetforum Sky attacks are predictable, boring, well prepared but humanly possible.

It is not physiologically possible to post numbers in the range of 6.7 posts per day. I just maintain 450 words a day...

 

[Benotti69]

Without a doubt and I am not defending Wiggins' stance on applauding Armtstrong. You can't.

My points are that

a) There is a reasonable chance this is a ghost written article.
b) If you were to pick your cycling heroes there is (imo) a reasonable chance there would be a number of dopers in there.

If Wiggins was misquoted in a big way I think that he would have corrected it.

I understand lots of sports 'stars' talk down the phone to a ghost journo, the smart ones get to see what is written before it goes to print.

Wiggins would've had the chance to correct it before print and if he didn't bother and it upset him reading it he could've corrected it in the next one.

 

[Froome19]

Wiggins wants to get on people's good sides. If that means attempting to portray himself as rubbing shoulders with the "legend" then that is what he would do. I am not applauding him, rather probably condeming him but unfortunately with Wiggins that is the sad fact of the matter.

 

[Benotti69]

Wiggins wants to get on people's good sides. If that means attempting to portray himself as rubbing shoulders with the "legend" then that is what he would do. I am not applauding him, rather probably condeming him but unfortunately with Wiggins that is the sad fact of the matter.

Why call people names then? Why call people bone idle W***kers and C**ts.

I dont think Wiggins gives a *** about people in general. His 'charity' might prove me wrong.

 

[Winterfold]

The CN editors really need to think long and hard whether having moderators who have strong views (to which they are personally entitled) which CN would not dare express in print is wise.

 

[coinneach]

The CN editors really need to think long and hard whether having moderators who have strong views (to which they are personally entitled) which CN would not dare express in print is wise.

I totally agree. Especially if strong views leads to selective bending of paraphrasing, and refusing to acknowledge ( a pretty minor, in the scheme of things) error.

 

[Froome19]

Why call people names then? Why call people bone idle W***kers and C**ts.

I dont think Wiggins gives a *** about people in general. His 'charity' might prove me wrong.

Because he is an impulsive man who is not the brightest jack in the box and can lose his temper.

 

[Netserk]

The CN editors really need to think long and hard whether having moderators who have strong views (to which they are personally entitled) which CN would not dare express in print is wise.

I totally agree. Especially if strong views leads to selective bending of paraphrasing, and refusing to acknowledge ( a pretty minor, in the scheme of things) error.

We have an appropriate thread about mods.

Any further comments about mods in this thread will be deleted as off topic.

 

[Parrulo]

i deleted a couple posts instead of closing the thread for now because the discussion seemed to be going in the right direction for a while between a couple posters after SB last warning.

however if the discussion of the mods positions here continue those people will be banned for a week for off topic posting after several warnings. this is the last warning so have it your way.

if you want to discuss the mods do it on the moderators thread on the about the forum section.

 

[thehog]

Because he is an impulsive man who is not the brightest jack in the box and can lose his temper.

Impulsive enough to dope?

 

[Froome19]

Impulsive enough to dope?

Hopefully not.

But if I was just looking at Wiggins's character I would probably not be surprised if he is doping.

 

[JRanton]

Because he is an impulsive man who is not the brightest jack in the box and can lose his temper.

Like father, like son.

 

[coinneach]

Because he is an impulsive man who is not the brightest jack in the box and can lose his temper.

I agree about his impulsivity and limited temper control.

But not being bright?

I see him as being sharp as a tack, and confident with it.

I like what he says too: witty, provokative, entertaining.

OK consistency isn´t high, but he gives it from the hip.

Which other team leader has criticised his own team´s anti-doping policies?