Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 71 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Talksport have been trying to shoehorn Sir Wiggo into their schedule for a few months but so far he's been anything but "Perfect for radio". They tried him on sunday mornings together with the two regular presenters with very funny results (although probably not in the way they were intending). Think it lasted two weeks and since been replaced with Darren Campbell. There's still hope though as history says it's 50:50 he can go from laughing stock to world beater within a year
 
Well Lee Clayton resigned as Matt Lawton's boss at Daily Mail to take the TalkSport Chief position since September it seems? Just interesting that Wiggins is claiming Lee Clayton knows Matt Lawton was not truthful/no corroborated and its going to Court? I also find it odd that Wiggins would accept a job from the ex head of Daily Mail Sport given his hatred for Daily Mail and of course it was Matt Lawton under Lee Clayton who broke the story. Something is going on that's for sure. Wiggins will host a TalkSport show that begins in January he says?
 
Re: Re:

Parker said:
hrotha said:
Why would you assume he took the comment seriously?
Why would a journalist wanting to viewed as credible post a joke story? (and praise it at that)
One would think that credibility is measured by the articles that he writes and not the things he may or may not find amusing.

Currently it seems

posting cat memes = still credible journalist

chuckling at a comment about Wiggins = hack, take it down, grrr :mad:
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Wiggo lives in a fantasy fairy-land of his own imagination. It's so well crafted that even other people like Sam choose to inhabit it too.

The truth of the jiffy bag containing an illicit substance, be it triamcinolone or something else, and irrespective of the nature of the source/s and any agendas they may have had, is well and truly established by two facts:

1) Brailsford's outrageous lies when he became aware of the allegation. Why would be try and wave it away with such ridiculous fibs if there was nothing to cover up?

2) The breakdown of Richard Freeman. Why would be get so stressed and shy if he had nothing to hide?

There are others too, but these two alone render it certain beyond any shadow of a doubt. Wiggins was doping. He can make whatever fevered, half-baked claims he likes, doesn't change what every sensible person knows he did.
 
I'm not an advocate of the argument that if Freeman had nothing to hide why did he have a breakdown. Plenty of people with nothing to hide have breakdowns. You know nothing about Freeman's mental state prior to the furore.

But....I think it's pretty clear that Wiggins toes did not stay on the right side of the ethical line, and it wouldn't take a huge leap of faith to think that his entire body was nowhere near it.

It was business as usual. For it not to be so would require Wiggins to be an exception, an outlier. I struggle to regard him as such.
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
We know nothing of Freeman's mental state during the furore either. There is no proof that he actually did suffer from any mental health condition or episode.

The point isn't whether or not he actually had a real breakdown, but rather that he completely dodged having to give an explanation, and having to respond to questioning. Everything about his conduct surrounding the incident stinks to high heaven - the hiding, the alleged shocking lack of record-keeping, the stolen laptop,the errant scripts, the writing of a book despite being unable to answer some simple questions in person, etc. These are not the actions or explanations of an innocent doc working solely on the straight and narrow, or a man determined to defend his good name.

Either Freeman was grossly negligent and then embarrassed by this, yet still somehow capable of leading the medical team for multiple Tour winners, or he was doping his riders. I know which explanation makes far more sense to me.
 
Mamil said:
The point isn't whether or not he actually had a real breakdown, but rather that he completely dodged having to give an explanation, and having to respond to questioning.
Except, of course, that Freeman did provide evidence and was interviewed. But why let facts get in the way of your imagination.
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Interviewed by whom? The BBC doesn't count. Who in a position of authority was able to interview him?

The stuff in his written statement was mostly junk.
 
Freeman answered DCMS's written questions. Obviously he couldn't be cross-examined on TV, but he did provide 9 pages of answers to their questions a little bit later. As for the breakdown, my understanding is the pressure he was under by UKAD & GMC to not say anything, but the media pressure to speak out about it made it very difficult.

The most interesting thing in Wiggins HLN Interview, is Lee Clayton resigned as Matt Lawton's boss shortly after DCMS published the document. Clayton now is boss of TalkSport radio and has given Wiggins his own show for 2019 as his boss essentially. In the interview Wiggins also says Daily Mail are in Court and big trouble over the jiffy bag story and that is why Lee Clayton resigned becauswe Wiggins claims he knows the *** storm Lawton is now in and he wanted to get out. ie he paid the whistleblower to say Triamcinolone, even though he had opposite statements from other witnesses, one of which was about the whistelblower that Lawton wouldn't run with instead for the main story.
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
Freeman was able to give his written answers at his own leisure, with minimal pressure. There was no scrutiny or cross-examination. Most of what he wrote comes across as either incredibly naive or outright fiction. Hardly rigorous, forthright testimony.

How is it that such a large, despised company as the Daily Mail is in court, but none of the other media have reported this? How is it that only Saint Wiggles is in the know? Until I see verification of these claims from other sources, I am leaning heavily towards Wiggo making stuff up...as usual. We will see.
 
Re:

macbindle said:
I'm not an advocate of the argument that if Freeman had nothing to hide why did he have a breakdown. Plenty of people with nothing to hide have breakdowns. You know nothing about Freeman's mental state prior to the furore.

But....I think it's pretty clear that Wiggins toes did not stay on the right side of the ethical line, and it wouldn't take a huge leap of faith to think that his entire body was nowhere near it.

It was business as usual. For it not to be so would require Wiggins to be an exception, an outlier. I struggle to regard him as such.
So Freeman's breakdown at the same time was a coincidence.

Next thing you'll be saying that Santa is real.
 
Mamil said:
We know nothing of Freeman's mental state during the furore either. There is no proof that he actually did suffer from any mental health condition or episode.

The point isn't whether or not he actually had a real breakdown, but rather that he completely dodged having to give an explanation, and having to respond to questioning. Everything about his conduct surrounding the incident stinks to high heaven - the hiding, the alleged shocking lack of record-keeping, the stolen laptop,the errant scripts, the writing of a book despite being unable to answer some simple questions in person, etc. These are not the actions or explanations of an innocent doc working solely on the straight and narrow, or a man determined to defend his good name.

Either Freeman was grossly negligent and then embarrassed by this, yet still somehow capable of leading the medical team for multiple Tour winners, or he was doping his riders. I know which explanation makes far more sense to me.
and showing up and stropping around the Manchester velodrome straight after getting away with testifying.

the main prerequisite to being a British Cycling and Sky employee must be that you have to be a good liar.
 
Mamil said:
Freeman was able to give his written answers at his own leisure, with minimal pressure. There was no scrutiny or cross-examination. Most of what he wrote comes across as either incredibly naive or outright fiction. Hardly rigorous, forthright testimony.

How is it that such a large, despised company as the Daily Mail is in court, but none of the other media have reported this? How is it that only Saint Wiggles is in the know? Until I see verification of these claims from other sources, I am leaning heavily towards Wiggo making stuff up...as usual. We will see.
It was reported by HLN but is behind a paywall. Half the story is already true in relation to head of Daily Mail Sport quitting and then giving Wiggins a job. The court case who knows. We wouldn't know anything until it closes anyway most likely.
 
Jan 11, 2018
260
0
0
HLN have reported nothing. They have simply published an interview with Wiggins in which he made a number of unsubstantiated claims. The end.

If the Mail and Lawton were in court in relation to one of the biggest sports stories of 2017 it would be significant news in the UK, not merely given a mention, with no follow or take up, in a Belgian newspaper. There would be no reason for any such legal proceedings to be suppressed. The fact is that right now there aren't any. Either Wiggo is getting ahead of himself, or he is straight out making things up.

All we know is that Clayton left the Mail for a good job at TalkSPORT, and has given Wiggins a role there. There could be any number of reasons for either decision - none have been given.

As it stands all we have is Wiggins shooting his mouth off, as usual. Still waiting for him to produce anything of substance after more than 12 months.

Besides, even if Wiggins' allegations are remotely accurate, where is the issue? Of course the Mail paid Sutton for his info, that's how the media works. And of course some Sky minions refuted what he claimed and said the package contained something else. So what? Where is the journalistic crime here? If Wiggins truly believes that Lawton went so far as to bribe Sutton to make a knowingly false statement, then good luck proving that.
 
Mamil said:
HLN have reported nothing. They have simply published an interview with Wiggins in which he made a number of unsubstantiated claims. The end.

If the Mail and Lawton were in court in relation to one of the biggest sports stories of 2017 it would be significant news in the UK, not merely given a mention, with no follow or take up, in a Belgian newspaper. There would be no reason for any such legal proceedings to be suppressed. The fact is that right now there aren't any. Either Wiggo is getting ahead of himself, or he is straight out making things up.

All we know is that Clayton left the Mail for a good job at TalkSPORT, and has given Wiggins a role there. There could be any number of reasons for either decision - none have been given.

As it stands all we have is Wiggins shooting his mouth off, as usual. Still waiting for him to produce anything of substance after more than 12 months.

Besides, even if Wiggins' allegations are remotely accurate, where is the issue? Of course the Mail paid Sutton for his info, that's how the media works. And of course some Sky minions refuted what he claimed and said the package contained something else. So what? Where is the journalistic crime here? If Wiggins truly believes that Lawton went so far as to bribe Sutton to make a knowingly false statement, then good luck proving that.
Wiggins seems to be claiming Lawton paid for the Whistleblower to say there was Triamcinolone in the package after two other sources saying something different. That would be a breach of PCC code of ethics. If that is breached by Lawton then Wiggins can take it further with DCMS I would think.
To me, it seems odd he's directly involving his new boss suggesting he quit over the jiffy bag story and calming he knows exactly what Lawton did if all made up by Wiggins.
Let's see. It's the Daily Mail afterall, so would be relatively expected.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts