Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Parker said:
Which bit is wrong? Some of it may not be fully quantifiable, but it doesn't seem to far of the mark. It doesn't fit into the 'Armstrong is 100% bad' idea, I know.
So you're ok with the whole everyone benefited from Armstrong bit?

Do you benefit when you have a pebble in your shoe?
 
Parker said:
And Froome was well within the 2 minutes of the quote (1'16 to be precise).y.
As was Cadel Evans in the 2007 tt which Wiggins was talking about.

When Wiggins said "not winning tts by 2 minutes" he was talking about how Vino beat him Bradley Wiggins by 2 minutes, not how Vino beat the next best rider in the field by 2 minutes.

Wiggins 2 minutes dowfinished 5th not 2nd in that tt.

So the correct comparison is did Wiggins beat the 5th placed rider by 2 minutes. Not did he beat the 2nd place rider by 2 minutes.
 
Parker said:
But why does he love Lance? Where is the rest of the quote? Is it because his 'love' is linked to the money he attracted to the sport and doesn't fit the agenda.

Selective quoting of Wiggins = good. Selective quoting of hrotha = bad. Right?
This is really simple. Obviously Wiggins cannot slander Armstrong but he can be at least neutral.

Wiggins knew Armstrong was doped. When asked about Armstrong he could have easily said,

"I never really raced with him or don't really know him, but his success has clearly lifted the profile of the sport and we are benefiting from that. We will see how he goes this year"

Factual without being dishonest. Yes maybe easier done with hindsight but I think the Armstrong question was asked of every pro in 2009 so it was hardly unexpected.

How hard would that have been instead of saying he loved him, regardless of whether it was for the money or other reasons.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Parker said:
The only quote I used was direct too - I deleted before and after, but the quote is intact. Check out the link I provided. And I didn't lie, I editorialised, spinning the story.

You will see thehog doing the same with a quote up there. The "in my whole reign" bit is (he means 'his' rather than 'my' I expect), as always, edited out.
By making something up. Which is lying.

If TheHog or anyone else misquotes someone then pull them on it.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
This is a message board, not professional wrestling. Baiting and trolling with impunity, then when challenged or defeated pulling the "I was working you guys - I am so smart that I only pretended and you all fell for it" card, isn't that one of the oldest ploys in the book? It means that win, lose or draw, you can pretend to be above it all and that you can claim the win cos you manipulated everybody else. You were oh so aloof and above it all, shrugging your shoulders with Gallic nonchalance whilst writing what looked like heated argument and debate, leaving everybody else writhing in fury while you smiled and nodded - your plan was working.
No, there was some clear structure to it. Using a past quote with little context against a present statement, in exactly the same way you and others were doing. I've made my point - I'm not persisting. I actually think that hrotha is a sensible poster generally, targeting one of the idiots wouldn't have been worthwhile.

What some of you have to understand is that riders will never express your views. The cycle in races, know the people and almost never look at internet forums. They will have heard rumours which they 100% knew are false. People here are the opposite. The spend every day here looking for doping gossip. To expect you views to correlate is absurd.
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
thehog said:
Thanks Hog! I don't know why people always give you a hard time.

It's funny, now that I've seen it I remember watching it at the time, I guess there's just too much material to absorb these days.

Rewatching that, I don't know how you could find ANYTHING wiggo says even remotely credible. I know he's just won the tour, but could he really not remember 2009? It stretches credulity past the breaking point.
 
cineteq said:
Jonathan Vaughters @Vaughters
Ok, let's elaborate.Since Wiggo was absolute BFF with LA in 2009 Tour, LA was in Wiggo's ear every moment about how "he should leave Garmin"
Vaughters, Clinic respect?

Oh wait, he said that he thinks Wiggins is clean. I guess not. Well, hopefully skidmark respect is some kind of consolation, however pathetic it might be.
 
The Hitch said:
As was Cadel Evans in the 2007 tt which Wiggins was talking about.

When Wiggins said "not winning tts by 2 minutes" he was talking about how Vino beat him Bradley Wiggins by 2 minutes, not how Vino beat the next best rider in the field by 2 minutes.

Wiggins 2 minutes dowfinished 5th not 2nd in that tt.

So the correct comparison is did Wiggins beat the 5th placed rider by 2 minutes. Not did he beat the 2nd place rider by 2 minutes.
The correct view then would be that Wiggins's original quote was incorrect and had little merit. And should therefore be largely ignored.
 
Aug 5, 2012
2,290
0
0
Libertine Seguros said:
Just like the Tour de France, all that's missing is Vince McMahon to pop out of the bushes to hit Wiggins with a steel chair.
Wiggins wouldn't sell it, brother.
 
WinterRider said:
Rewatching that, I don't know how you could find ANYTHING wiggo says even remotely credible. I know he's just won the tour, but could he really not remember 2009? It stretches credulity past the breaking point.
The more I see Wiggo talking on different interviews, the more I think he's behavior is freaking erratic, perhaps bipolar?
 
skidmark said:
Vaughters, Clinic respect?

Oh wait, he said that he thinks Wiggins is clean. I guess not. Well, hopefully skidmark respect is some kind of consolation, however pathetic it might be.
This is unfair.
A lot of people in the clinic respect Vaughters, epsecially for coming on here and answering so many questions.
A lot of people on the wiggins doper side respect Vaughters. A lot of us have defended him against those who propose theories about his involvement in massive doping conspiracies.

The idea that you can only respect people who agree 100% with you on all issues is absurd. Vaughters has his opinion, makes clear its his opinion (doesnt claim it is a fact) and he is entitled to it.
 
Parker said:
What some of you have to understand is that riders will never express your views. The cycle in races, know the people and almost never look at internet forums. They will have heard rumours which they 100% knew are false. People here are the opposite. The spend every day here looking for doping gossip. To expect you views to correlate is absurd.
Except no one is asking riders to do any of that. No one is asking or demanding riders to say anything.
 
Aug 9, 2010
6,264
0
0
Thanks Hitch...good post there...
I agree..some folks seem to feel they need to crucify JV and turn everything he says inside out...and look for 'hidden meanings.

Then, if he doesn't come to the clinic many of those challenge him and taunt and say JV won't show his face and say bla bla...

Tiresome and immature comments sometimes...:mad:


btw...

Originally Posted by WinterRider
"Thanks Hog! I don't know why people always give you a hard time."

:D
you are rising in standing...
 
I think most of us analyze everything JV says so closely simply because there's a chance he'll answer our questions, actually. I certainly respect him a lot for engaging the fans and being so open, but obviously you can't let your guard down, and even the most righteous man in the world will do or say questionable things or have to clear stuff up.

I tend to trust what he says, with reservations. For example, on the issue of Wiggins and the 2009 Tour, I believe JV. I'd love to hear what he thinks of 2012 Wiggins off the record (asking about Adalberto Cantador, a completely hypothetical cyclist, worked very well - maybe I should ask him about fictional Tour winner Bradford Wigant?).
 
The Hitch said:
Except no one is asking riders to do any of that. No one is asking or demanding riders to say anything.
But whenever a rider says something that doesn't tally with what is expected, then they get savaged. Even Nicole Cooke got savaged (a jumping the shark moment - again).

This forum is just a vestibule for vitriol and with every turn justifies Wiggins's sweary invective.
 
Parker said:
But whenever a rider says something that doesn't tally with what is expected, then they get savaged. Even Nicole Cooke got savaged (a jumping the shark moment - again).

This forum is just a vestibule for vitriol and with every turn justifies Wiggins's sweary invective.
Poor Wiggins, it's the haters fault that he was "friends" with Armstrong.
 
Parker said:
No, there was some clear structure to it. Using a past quote with little context against a present statement, in exactly the same way you and others were doing. I've made my point - I'm not persisting. I actually think that hrotha is a sensible poster generally, targeting one of the idiots wouldn't have been worthwhile.

What some of you have to understand is that riders will never express your views. The cycle in races, know the people and almost never look at internet forums. They will have heard rumours which they 100% knew are false. People here are the opposite. The spend every day here looking for doping gossip. To expect you views to correlate is absurd.
I don't expect my views to match up to those of the pro péloton. They'd hate my views on parcours design unless they weigh about 50kg anyway.

What I do expect, however, is that if a rider wants the fans to trust them when they say they're clean, that rider shouldn't have a track record of contradicting themselves. If what Vaughters says is true and Wiggins definitely knew Lance was doping back in 2009, it makes his 2010-11 statements all the more a cause for concern. Because he wasn't being non-committal or even politely praising him - he was explicitly praising him. That is hard to reconcile with what he's had to say. What he's had to say today, taken in isolation, was good. But in the grand scheme of Wiggins' quotes, it's another line to further confuse where his standpoint is on the subject, because he's been all over the place on the issue, from fully pro-Lance to fully anti-Lance, and almost everywhere in between. If he can't decide where he stands, how can we trust his statements not to change if he's in a different mood in 10 minutes' time?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY