Wiggins, Clinic respect?

[Bat Man]

Or it could be that he's just lying through his teeth like he has done during his entire professional career. For reference, below is a graph of his 2009 blood values. Maybe why some experts believe that the probability he was racing clean during 2009 is extremely low.

Sorry I don't follow your point? That was part of Armstrong's profile, not Wiggins.

 

[Grandillusion]

From here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=403018&post403018



I don't have any annual leave until March and I don't have a gun, so if you could just shoot yourself, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Come off it Parker! I've just read that it's full context, and in no way is it a "defence". It's part of an explanation of a doping programme. Fail.

 

[Parker]

That's not defending Valverde's statements about Lance, which is what we were talking about. That was just me trying to discuss things objectively. Try again.

No, you've already said that Wiggins can't praise one thing and condemn another. So you can't either.

 

[martinvickers]

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?

I'm certain, as it happens, that he wasn't as 'anti-doping' as suggested by his outburst in 2007. Indeed, I think the attempt to hold him to that standard is the root of his animus with Kimmage.

I've posted before on this, but I think people are looking in the wrong place for 'the pattern'; the link that makes Wiggins' commentary consistent and predictable - and specifically they look at relationship to armstrong/ and or view on doping for that consistency, and clearly, it isn't there. Some have taken that as a sign of dishonesty, others haven't.

But I have always maintained that is not the consistent thread of Wiggins commentary. The consistent thread is simple - Wiggins lashes out at the person causing him hassle at that moment in time. No more, no less.

So 2007, he gets kicked off tour and lands in cell for a spell because of a doper on his team - result, he lashes out at dopers (his well known anti-dope rhetoric), and team ("throw the kit in the bin").

"008, he wins double gold at Beijing and is a minor national hero - gets p!ssed, is happy, lashes at nobody

2009, concentrates on road, Garmin give decent environment, finds himself a contender with people far beyond his in palmeres and the doyenne, LA, being all friendly and respectful - Brad feels very good about life, Lance and lashes noone

2010 - joins sky, feels pressure, fails at tour - lashes internally, insists on own coach etc

2011 - wins Romandi, crashes at tour, but comes back with excellent vuelta, first ever podium - job safe, good year, no lashing

2012 - Wins everything, but the fanbase are turning on him, and he's getting accused of doping on the internet- he gets angry, and who does he lash, the internet

2013 - Lance confesses, world wants to know his opinion, his tour win being overshadowed by lance - who does he lash? Lance.

I think that's your pattern, rather than a 'thematic' consistency...

 

[Parker]

Come off it Parker! I've just read that it's full context, and in no way is it a "defence". It's part of an explanation of a doping programme. Fail.

No, it's defending Valverde. Saying he is probably winning clean or cleaner. Sounds like a defence to me.

And why can't things be taken out of context - most of you do it all the time.

 

[gregod]

re: Wiggins, Clinic respect?

as one who is not the most vocal or flame throwingest clinic participant, my only comment on wiggins is short.

what a putz.

 

[pmcg76]

No, it's defending Valverde. Saying he is probably winning clean or cleaner. Sounds like a defence to me.

And why can't things be taken out of context - most of you do it all the time.

No, that's the clinic 12 who are not present at this time. Guess it's easier to lump everyone together.

I think everyone knew what hrotha meant as did you.

 

[hrotha]

No, it's defending Valverde. Saying he is probably winning clean or cleaner. Sounds like a defence to me.

I didn't say that at all. You missed several quotation marks, would's and other qualifiers. But whatever, everyone else sees right through your act.

 

[Grandillusion]

No, it's defending Valverde. Saying he is probably winning clean or cleaner. Sounds like a defence to me.

And why can't things be taken out of context - most of you do it all the time.

No, he was describing Valverde's natural gifts as enabling him to be able to dope a little less than the others, and be less at risk of being caught. That is not "defending" him. That is an explanation, as you well know. Come on!

 

[The Hitch]

From here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?p=403018&post403018



I don't have any annual leave until March and I don't have a gun, so if you could just shoot yourself, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Are you for real? He said that Valverde is a top natural talent which he is. He didnt praise him or defend him.

So according to you if you think someone is a ****, you have to put down absolutely everything about them? You cant aknowledge that they have some talent or redeeming qualities, not 1? You cant even claim they are a talented bike rider.

 

[The Hitch]

No, it's defending Valverde. Saying he is probably winning clean or cleaner. Sounds like a defence to me.

No he didnt say he is probably winning clean. He said its possible that Valverde could win clean

Valverde is most likely one of the most naturally talented riders out there, so depending on how "clean" the sport has "become", it's perfectly possible that Valverde would still be winning either clean or cleaner than many of his rivals.

 

[Parker]

I didn't say that at all. You missed several quotation marks, would's and other qualifiers. But whatever, everyone else sees right through your act.

Do you think everything Wiggins says in an interview is published? What can apply to him, I can apply to you. Your love for Valverde shines through in your earlier quote - "one of the most talented natural riders", yet when challenged, you change your tune. Why not condemn all the time?

I would suggest a revolver. They don't jam much & get the job done.

 

[workingclasshero]

No, it's defending Valverde. Saying he is probably winning clean or cleaner. Sounds like a defence to me.

And why can't things be taken out of context - most of you do it all the time.

ban this lying troll c*nt. already managed to make this thread a mess.

 

[hrotha]

My love for Valverde, lol. OK, I'll stop replying to him, for the sake of this thread, and I suggest everybody does the same.

 

[The Hitch]

Your love for Valverde shines through in your earlier quote - "one of the most talented natural riders", yet when challenged, you change your tune.

.

saying a rider is talented means you love them?

 

[Parker]

Just ten minutes of turning up the heat on an anonymous poster and I get swearing, calls for a banning, dismissal, justifications and general hostility.

And I'm only doing what Wiggins gets ever time he's interviewed and the scutiny he gets over years of quotes. And yet he's condemned when you lot can't handle it for a single page.

Get the point yet?

 

[The Hitch]

My love for Valverde, lol. OK, I'll stop replying to him, for the sake of this thread, and I suggest everybody does the same.

lol I remember you refusing to watch the Spanish coverage of i think it was the Ardennes because the commentators were going on about Valverde.

Admit it you love him.

 

[stefrees]

I thought I'd read ridiculous nonsense after reading the sun. Now I've seen it all. Not a single comment from a single person has any relevance.

 

[WinterRider]

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.

Bat man seems to be trolling, so I wouldn't pay too much attention to him.

 

[cineteq]

Just in.

Jonathan Vaughters @Vaughters
"Oh Wiggo.... While I respect your talent and believe you're clean... You forget some pretty important stuff sometimes."

I think JV was reading this thread.

 

[The Hitch]

Just ten minutes of turning up the heat on an anonymous poster and I get swearing, calls for a banning, dismissal, justifications and general hostility.

Was that really the mass forum reaction to your posts? Or did practically all of the above actually come from 1 poster in 1 short post ?

And I'm only doing what Wiggins gets ever time he's interviewed and the scutiny he gets over years of quotes. And yet he's condemned when you lot can't handle it for a single page.

Get the point yet?

No because Wiggins did say he "loves" Lance. Hrotha never said he loves Valverde, as you have claimed. He said he was a top natural talent.

Get the difference yet?

 

[WinterRider]

Yes, he did say that he didn't even ride the Tour with Armstrong.

It was recent, but before the Reasoned Decision.

It may be almost impossible to locate now, though. Searching on anything related to Armstrong has become difficult to sift through.

Dave.

It was my recollection that it was a british broadcaster, and not Wiggins, who had said it when covering the story. That's why I was hoping someone had an actual source.

 

[Cyivel]

I much as I love Scotty Parker he's gone off on one here.

 

[D-Queued]

Or it could be that he's just lying through his teeth like he has done during his entire professional career. For reference, below is a graph of his 2009 blood values. Maybe why some experts believe that the probability he was racing clean during 2009 is extremely low. (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/usa...n-chance-armstrong-rode-2009-2010-tours-clean)

Hi Cobbler,

Can you re-do that graph to also show an HCT range, or minimally the cut-off at 50?

Like how did Lance manage his training so well that his HCT rose 20% perfectly for the start of the Tour?

That has to be completely manipulated to avoid a BP alert.

Dave.

 

[workingclasshero]

Just ten minutes of turning up the heat on an anonymous poster and I get swearing, calls for a banning, dismissal, justifications and general hostility.

And I'm only doing what Wiggins gets ever time he's interviewed and the scutiny he gets over years of quotes. And yet he's condemned when you lot can't handle it for a single page.

Get the point yet?

oh you think youre so clever dont you kid