Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Page 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
The Hitch said:
Except no one is asking riders to do any of that. No one is asking or demanding riders to say anything.
I don't think that's entirely true, either, Hitch.

After all, this was an interview from an all day media session for Sky - so presumably the media are asking riders to 'do any of that'. and quite possibly the team too...

you can't forget the position of the media, between the public and the rider....
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
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.
3 or 4 posters remarked on Cooke, (the same posters who believe most dope) - that is not even a blip of representation of this forum.
So by attempting to portray some amazing "savagery" by The Clinic shows you are the one to jump the shark.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Ferminal said:
What does he mean by "wasn't the same bike rider" (Ventoux was only one week after Verbier but whatever).
I know the fanbois will say I am imagining it, but I seem to recall a certain Lance Armstrong dropping Wigans on the way to La Grand-Bornand and the only reason it did not happen earlier is because Armstrong had a teammate up the road. Wiggins was holding Armstrong back.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
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?
Yeah. Lot's of people said great things about Michael Jackson, Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter and Stuart Hall too. I did for some of them.

And you know what - I still think Michael Jackson was a genius, Stuart Hall was a great commentator and Rock and Roll Part 2 is a great song. (Saville I never liked but he did support cycling).

Opinions aren't black and white. They change and have shades. And it's decent behaviour not to 'call out' people if you don't know.

People can trawl over historical quotes and present them out of full context as much as they like, but you haven't lived that life - some respect for that should exist.

Otherwise, your posts are exercises in hatred of cyclist and cycling, based on what trolling opportunties they provide.


Seeing as Wiggins is so terrible, I challenge anyone to name a cyclist (pro conti or above) who has criticised both Armstrong and the UCI/McQuaid. Wiggins has. Who else?
 
Dr. Maserati said:
3 or 4 posters remarked on Cooke, (the same posters who believe most dope) - that is not even a blip of representation of this forum.
So by attempting to portray some amazing "savagery" by The Clinic shows you are the one to jump the shark.
There were a few big contributers on that thread and you know it. Not you, I know. But did you think that thread, which featured several regulars, showed the forum in a good light? Appearance rather than actuality seems to be the currency here after all. That was the forum's Leinders moment.
 
Parker said:
Seeing as Wiggins is so terrible, I challenge anyone to name a cyclist (pro conti or above) who has criticised both Armstrong and the UCI/McQuaid. Wiggins has. Who else?
"I think the Tour is a lot more human now with everything the UCI is doing," Wiggins said, referring to the body that runs international cycling.
He loves the UCI as well.
 
cineteq said:
Let me guess...it contradicts the previous one, right?
Yes. Just as those who gave Bernie Madoff a great reference changed their minds later.

It's a good job science doesn't work like this. Politics does though. 'Flip-floping' is attacked, even if it's sensible. There are WMDs. There are WMDs. There are WMDs. (Where there WMDs?)

"Once you in it, you in it. If it's a lie, then we fight on that lie. But we gotta fight" - that's it, right? No changing opinions.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Parker said:
There were a few big contributers on that thread and you know it. Not you, I know. But did you think that thread, which featured several regulars, showed the forum in a good light? Appearance rather than actuality seems to be the currency here after all. That was the forum's Leinders moment.
What does "big contributors" even mean?

There were 3 or 4 posters - that was it.
And actually as threads went it was ok, as there was a debate and people backed up their opinions with links, it wasn't just talk. Thats what forums are for.
 
martinvickers said:
I don't think that's entirely true, either, Hitch.

After all, this was an interview from an all day media session for Sky - so presumably the media are asking riders to 'do any of that'. and quite possibly the team too...

you can't forget the position of the media, between the public and the rider....
My point is silence is an option. The implication was that fans are demanding riders to say certain things. and while.maybe some.are, the riders who dont say anything don't get attacked.

Even in the clinic.
Even the most reactionary posters.

Cadel Evans and Chris froome for example never criticised lance either. But they havent said much on the doping at all. And even the most trigger happy posters barely mention them in these discussions ( about attitude to doping)

Which shows that it isn't about what you don't say, but about what you do say.
 
Parker said:
Yes. Just as those who gave Bernie Madoff a great reference changed their minds later.

It's a good job science doesn't work like this. Politics does though. 'Flip-floping' is attacked, even if it's sensible. There are WMDs. There are WMDs. There are WMDs. (Where there WMDs?)

"Once you in it, you in it. If it's a lie, then we fight on that lie. But we gotta fight" - that's it, right? No changing opinions.
What?

How about admitting being wrong. Then he can say whatever he wants.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
What does "big contributors" even mean?

There were 3 or 4 posters - that was it.
And actually as threads went it was ok, as there was a debate and people backed up their opinions with links, it wasn't just talk. Thats what forums are for.
Big contributors: Benotti69, thehog, sniper, blackcat and a couple of others not on that thread.

You and other sensible contributors may think you set the tone and agenda of this forum, but you don't. They do. This forum has its own 'omerta' keeping the status quo which some aren't fully comfortable with.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Parker said:
Big contributors: Benotti69, thehog, sniper, blackcat and a couple of others not on that thread.

You and other sensible contributors may think you set the tone and agenda of this forum, but you don't. They do. This forum has its own 'omerta' keeping the status quo which some aren't fully comfortable with.
So when I call them on their BS I am actually breaking Omerta, how cool.

That is a load of nonsense. I certainly dont believe I set the tone, as there is none.
Why do pages go in to a 2nd or 3rd page? Because there is a difference of opinion.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
So when I call them on their BS I am actually breaking Omerta, how cool.

That is a load of nonsense. I certainly dont believe I set the tone, as there is none.
Why do pages go in to a 2nd or 3rd page? Because there is a difference of opinion.
No. I'm not saying that you set the tone. You don't - it would be nice if you did. I'm telling you those that do. You can deny it all you want - but those four posters largely set the tone of this forum. (You are nicknamed the Asylum elsewhere - that's not down to you)
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Parker said:
(You are nicknamed the Asylum elsewhere - that's not down to you)
You mean Sky Fanboy Central over there at Bike Radar's sad excuse for a racing forum?

Back in the day, Postal fans had The Paceline. Now Sky fans have Bike Radar. The parallel would be funny if it was not so pathetic.
 
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Parker said:
No. I'm not saying that you set the tone. You don't - it would be nice if you did. I'm telling you those that do. You can deny it all you want - but those four posters largely set the tone of this forum. (You are nicknamed the Asylum elsewhere - that's not down to you)
Ok, This actually what you wrote: "You and other sensible contributors may think you set the tone and agenda of this forum"

My point was simple - no-one here sets a tone.
The only reason you (and those others) think so is because you are here to push one side of an argument and you object to the 'tone' of the opposite.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS