Wiggins, Clinic respect?

[Joachim]

Since you asked, to me the obvious answer is to dodge, or deflect criticism of Wiggins.
But you are welcome to answer and correct your own question.

It is irrelevant if someone accusing another rider during a race - what Wiggins did was praise and gush about LA, all while suspecting LA doped keeping him off the podium?!

Whooooooosh!

(the sound of somebody failing to understand a point)

 

[Grand Tourist]

That's fine, but then why bring up that he isn't bright?

Again, I could understand BW saying nothing, or giving the 'respect', or cancer Jesus line, but he didn't. He gushed about him, while suspecting he doped?!

As I've already said BW isn't the sharpest tool in the box & back in 2009 Armstrong was a very powerful player. BW enjoyed his breakout performance in 2009. No one was expecting him to do very well in that Tour. I suspect he realised he had the potential to make big money in pro-cycling & felt he ought to say something nice about the 'governor'.

As far as Wiggins knew Armstrong would be in a position to make or break a career for the forseeable future & he felt had to play lip service to the status quo. With the benefit of hindsight he probably regrets the Armstrong 'big love'.

It's more informative to look at Skys performances & stuff like Leidners than what Wiggins says.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Whooooooosh!

(the sound of somebody failing to understand a point)

Whoosh - the sound of someone not articulating what their point was, which I offered you to do if my analysis was wrong.

 

[the asian]

So if no cyclist has ever done so, why are people questioning why Wiggins didn't, during the race, in 2009?

Double-standards? Especially high ones for the cyclist you hate?

No was is criticizing Wiggins for not calling out Armstrong as a doper in 2009.

He's being criticized for professing his love for Armstrong even when he had been properly educated by his team on the story of Lance.

It has been pointed out numerously in this thread and if you still can't understand it you are beyond help.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

It's more informative to look at Skys performances & stuff like Leidners than what Wiggins says.

Good point, let's just say Wiggins is a coward, a liar and a hypocrite.

We all know now.

And, in due time we will know he is a doper.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As I've already said BW isn't the sharpest tool in the box & back in 2009 Armstrong was a very powerful player. BW enjoyed his breakout performance in 2009. No one was expecting him to do very well in that Tour. I suspect he realised he had the potential to make big money in pro-cycling & felt he ought to say something nice about the 'governor'.

As far as Wiggins knew Armstrong would be in a position to make or break a career for the forseeable future & he felt had to play lip service to the status quo. With the benefit of hindsight he probably regrets the Armstrong 'big love'.

It's more informative to look at Skys performances & stuff like Leidners than what Wiggins says.

The 'I love him' comment was in 2010.
Wiggins was already on Sky on a 4 year deal. And again whether BW is smart or dumb is irrelevant.

 

[thehog]

As I've already said BW isn't the sharpest tool in the box & back in 2009 Armstrong was a very powerful player. BW enjoyed his breakout performance in 2009. No one was expecting him to do very well in that Tour. I suspect he realised he had the potential to make big money in pro-cycling & felt he ought to say something nice about the 'governor'.

As far as Wiggins knew Armstrong would be in a position to make or break a career for the forseeable future & he felt had to play lip service to the status quo. With the benefit of hindsight he probably regrets the Armstrong 'big love'.

It's more informative to look at Skys performances & stuff like Leidners than what Wiggins says.

He was saying Lance was clean in 2011, 500 tests as well!

“I’ve always been a bit of a fan of Lance and have sided on the side of innocent until proven guilty with him. There isn’t an athlete or a cyclist out there that isn’t more tested than he is, certainly since his comeback, he’s probably been the most tested cyclist in the pro peloton and you take that on face value and that he’s never failed a drugs test and until he does he’s clean. That’s how I’ve always had as a stance on Lance.”

“All the other stuff that’s come on with Landis and things like that is one for the courts and whether the truth will ever come out is down to this investigation. I think time will tell with that. As it stands today, with the time I’ve raced with him – and I’ve never raced with him in his era of winning seven Tours – but in his comeback, he’s probably been the most tested athlete and never failed a drugs test.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-calls-for-biological-passport-data-to-be-made-public

 

[Escarabajo]

Yes, there has been a movement in what Wiggins has said, but of course there has been a corresponding movement of Wiggins's position in the peloton.

I think Wiggins view prior to last autumns events, and Armstrongs confession was that he didn't care enough to be vociferous about it because he personally didn't feel cheated by Armstrong. He was nowhere near him in the GC.

This is why last autumn he was pretty clear that he would be mightily p1ssed if Armstrong had cheated in 09 because it cost him a podium place.

Now I understand. If Lance cheats other people is OK, but if he cheats Wiggins then it is not OK!

 

[Joachim]

No was is criticizing Wiggins for not calling out Armstrong as a doper in 2009.

He's being criticized for professing his love for Armstrong even when he had been properly educated by his team on the story of Lance.

You haven't been reading the thread very carefully then

It has been pointed out numerously in this thread and if you still can't understand it you are beyond help.

Why the personal attack? Do you think it helps?

 

[Avoriaz]

Or maybe at the time he said it, he truly loved the guy? Maybe he was in awe of him, a bit intimidated, and maybe Lance played him like a violin for a while (possibly to have a pop at JV)? Hence JV's twitter comments last night about dealing with Wiggins being Lance BFF during the 2009 tour. All this is possible without having to be hooked up to a blood bag himself, is it not? And maybe that is temporary insanity, or maybe life is just not quite as simple as you make out.

I agree. He was being allowed to play in the big sand pit and he was starstruck. Happens

 

[hrotha]

That temporary insanity went on for what, 2-3 years?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Or maybe no-one's lying, they're just honestly reporting how they feel at any given moment in time? Maybe JV did tell him what he knew about the past, and maybe Wiggins did suspect something wasn't right in 2009, maybe part of him 'knew' that was the case. But equally maybe another part of him wanted to go on believing or was convinced by Lance etc?

Look at it like this. Wiggins today is saying he reacted emotionally when he watched Oprah. Yet a month ago he wasn't surprised when USADA report was released. Is he lying today about the emotion, or was he lying before Christmas about his lack of surprise. Or is it possible that he simultaneously could both rationalise the truth in December, and yet still feel the cut of the actual admission in January - and that's nothing to do with lying, it's just about being, well, alive?

I do have real trouble with this idea that if someone is inconsistent or contradictory in what they say or feel, then the only explanation is that they're lying. Everyone I have ever met has been inconsistent and contradictory at times.

Somebody has to be lying though, because the statements are so contradictory as to be totally incompatible with one another. Yes, his opinions have changed over time, but the timeline he gives has changed as well. If he was so sure Lance was doping in 2009, why was he so gushing in his praise of him after that? He could have been guarded, or have even done the "Lance has helped the profile of cycling in a lot of places" speech without the "the sport will never realise just how much he's done for it" or "I love him" bits, or have played diplomacy on the "I respect his achievements" line of thinking, but he didn't. So after hearing all the gushing about it in 2010-11, it then rings hollow to hear that he was told about Armstrong in 2009 and that he, regardless, developed a suspicion of him that year as well.

It means either he chose to ignore what his mind and his manager were telling him and went out of his way to publicly support something he knew to be false, or his manager didn't tell him and he didn't think what he says he thought in 2009. Because if you're that suspicious of somebody, you don't put your hand in the fire for them.

I wouldn't put my hand in the fire for Team Sky. Because they've shown enough contradictory messages for me not to be able to trust that what they say won't be changed and ret-conned next week.

So if no cyclist has ever done so, why are people questioning why Wiggins didn't, during the race, in 2009?

Double-standards? Especially high ones for the cyclist you hate?

If you recall, I did a long post in the Sky thread a while ago about how people wanting Wiggins to call out Armstrong are fools.

It's here.

I think 'coward' is a bit unfair though for a rider in a position like that. What does a rider like Wiggins stand to gain from shouting down Astana at that point? He's a comparative no-name, at least in road cycling, and he's on a team which are in their first year as a pro team, trying to hold on to an unexpected good GC place. Against him he has the best rider on the planet (who's probably juiced), and the most famous rider on the planet (who's probably juiced), both on the strongest and most powerful team to take on the Tour in years (probably even stronger than 2012 Sky). He's watching what's happening within that very team as a guy is being carefully ostracized and character assassinated in the press for having the temerity to ride the Tour de France to try to win, not even attacking Armstrong himself per se. Wiggins may well have suspected Armstrong was pilled up, but it is most clearly in his own interests to keep his mouth shut, at least while Lance is active]

I stand by everything I said there.

But what the crux of the issue here is this bit:

Wiggins may well have suspected Armstrong was pilled up, but it is most clearly in his own interests to keep his mouth shut, at least while Lance is active; Lance's media presence at that point is far too powerful.

For clarification, keeping his mouth shut also includes being diplomatic when questioned on the issue. That is in his own interests, because you don't want to alienate Armstrong. Praising and extolling the virtues of Armstrong, on the other hand, isn't so clearly in his own interests, unless he's happy to go back on, or ignore, his moral judgment.

If Wiggins had been being diplomatic, mildly positive towards, or towed the party line on Lance for the last three years, he'd get much less criticism because his re-telling of the story of being suspicious of Lance since 2009 would sound much more believable if he hadn't been telling us all how great the man was in the intervening period.

 

[RownhamHill]

He was saying Lance was clean in 2011, 500 tests as well!



http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-calls-for-biological-passport-data-to-be-made-public

But he's very clearly not saying 'I believe Lance is clean' in that quote.

He's saying he personally has always 'sided' on the 'innocent until proven guilty'. Which is a completely different thing entirely. 'You take that on face value'. 'Until he does [fail a drugs test] he's clean'. 'All the other stuff. . . is one for the courts'. 'Whether the truth will ever come out is down to this investigation.'

In other words he's choosing to (publicly at least) give Lance the benefit of the doubt (for whatever, unspecified, reason - probably a mixture of hope, admiration, and pragmatism) but he's aware there is quite a lot of doubt, and it's for the courts and the investigation to decide.

 

[Joachim]

I stand by everything I said there.

But what the crux of the issue here is this bit:

The points you make in your post from the Sky thread is, in essence, what I'm saying here.

It's easy to forget that in 09, Wiggins was not a star. Remember that footage of him after that stage where he managed to hang in with the big boys for the first time? He couldn't believe it. He was star-struck.

The Power of Lance.

 

[RownhamHill]

It means either he chose to ignore what his mind and his manager were telling him and went out of his way to publicly support something he knew to be false,

Yeah, I see where you're coming from on all of the above, and think it's fair enough. My point of difference with you is in the quoted bit above. I agree he might have chosen to ignore what his mind and manager were telling him, but I don't agree it follows that meant he 'knew it to be false'.

I've publicly defended Contador on this forum, and publicly doubted whether his doping ban was just. And that's a choice I've made despite what a lot of my rational mind is telling me. But it's not a choice 'I know to be false' - I'm not lying when I say I think he might have been stitched up, I'm just aware that my hope and desire to believe Contador's story (for a number of various reasons to do with how he rides, and how he presents himself in interviews) allows me to shove the doubts to the back of my mind. Because I'm a human, and I'm emotional, and I want to believe something that I know really might not be true.

Anyway, nice talking to you, I'm done for the day.

 

[WinterRider]

Vaughters on Twitter confirmed that Wiggins knew the truth about Lance back in 2009 and he also says he had to deal with Wiggo worshiping Lance in 09.
Even if he forgot the story, he surely would have been reminded during the Tour.

No, he said Wiggins isn't remembering everything, but he didn't say precisely what it was Wiggins is supposed to have forgotten.

 

[Mellow Velo]

Have to say that however Wiggins felt about Lance, back in 2009, he should not have gone there with his comments.
Should have left that sleeping dog lie.
However, he did and depending upon how much you like/neutral/hate the guy, now looks anywhere from naive to knowingly hypocritical.

Still, the guys baying for him to comment on either Lance or Sky's position are once again baying the loudest.
No surprise there.

Should take a leaf out of Cuddle's book.
Can't be outspoken if you don't actually say anything about anything.

 

[WinterRider]

Possible hypotheses for the current situation:

1) Wiggins did not know LA was doping until the Reasoned Decision. Consequences of this:
- Wiggins didn't realise what he was saying when he said Sky would use USPS as a template and didn't expect the negative backlash and doping accusations
- Wiggins lied in the interview yesterday, because he said he realised LA was doping in 2009
- Vaughters lied yesterday, because he hadn't made Wiggins aware of the whole situation.

I feel that this situation marks Wiggins out not only as a liar but incredibly stupid, and feel that this credits him with too little intelligence.

2) Wiggins found out LA was doping in 2009 as JV stated, and as an aggressive anti-doper was turned off by this. Consequences of this:
- Wiggins' interviews from 2009 to the Reasoned Decision are full of lies, or misunderstood sarcasm
- Wiggins was willing to sidle up to a known cheat in order to advance his career
- Wiggins was lying when he reacted to the Reasoned Decision, because he had known for three years plus what had gone on.
- Wiggins knew what happened at USPS and is therefore naïve not to have expected the backlash when he compared Sky to them.
- Wiggins did a smear job on Floyd Landis even when knowing that Landis was correct.

3) Wiggins found out LA was doping in 2009 as per JV, but didn't want to believe it. Consequences of this:
- Wiggins has gone out of his way to defend LA to justify the opinion he wants to be the case in the face of knowing the reality, and takes multiple opportunities to voice this
- Wiggins lied when he responded to the Reasoned Decision and in those interviews to protect the LA myth, which makes him by proxy part of omertà.
- Wiggins also upheld omertà by doing a smear job on Landis despite knowing he was correct.

The only way we can spin this pretty fairly is if Wiggins found out Armstrong was doping somwhere after the 'love' comments of 2009-11, but before the Reasoned Decision. The problem is that then implies that a) Vaughters is a liar, as he didn't make Wiggins aware of USPS, and b) Wiggins is a liar, because he didn't realise partway through the 2009 Tour what was going on.

Either way, somebody is lying in this situation, possibly everybody. Actually, this is cycling: probably everybody.

Great post, but you missed one possibility. Wiggins has been doping since his track days. His rant in 2007 was full of lies and he was primarily ****ed that he got kicked out, and was also not doping as effectively as the rest of the peloton when it came to the Tour (thus his earlier poor results).

After that, all the buddy buddy with Lance is his genuine self, and he has only recently realized that he's looking pretty bad in the eyes of the public and he's trying to figure out how to fix that.

 

[the asian]

No, he said Wiggins isn't remembering everything, but he didn't say precisely what it was Wiggins is supposed to have forgotten.

Nope. In a response to another person's tweet he tweeted that 'Wiggins knew".

Also according to other posters , Wiggins has acknowledged that he knew it in his book.

 

[Franklin]

Should take a leaf out of Cuddle's book.
Can't be outspoken if you don't actually say anything about anything.

Yep, he's among the worst coached stars or one of the least manageable cycle stars PR wise.

It's why his newspaper interviews are jarring.. it's like it's a different person.

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Yep, he's among the worst coached stars or one of the least manageable cycle stars PR wise.

It's why his newspaper interviews are jarring.. it's like it's a different person.

Wiggi is an accident waiting to happen. Patience.

 

[thehog]

Appears Cadel Evans is the new Greg LeMond.

Doping deflection point #134: "When one is accused of doping throw in another athletes name as deflection. Ensure athlete is from alternate country for maximum deflection value."

 

[armchairclimber]

Lol what a post.


1 wiggins is excused from everything because he's"different". Doesn't matter whether it adds up or not, he's different.

2 your all insignificant anyway (the ultimate last resort flame). Wiggins doesn't care (as if people were trying to convince wiggins)

3 im leaving.


Mate your arguments weren't making any sense. no matter how many different ways you try to spin it wiggins did say those things about lance. The reason you felt like you were banging your head against a wall is because there is no spinning it. Wiggos contradictions do raise question marks. He was passionate and consistent enough in both his stances that even the most wild imagination can't invent a plausible explanation that he doesn't come.off bad in.

I see contrariness as just that. You seem to see it as evidence of something else, which is a trifle odd given your generally level headed persona. We disagree about Wiggins...that doesn't mean I regard you as an idiot. It would probably serve you better if you didn't respond as you did here though.

 

[Franklin]

It would probably serve you better if you didn't respond as you did here though.

Uhm, he points out facts and contradictions... as you can't deflect them you want him to stop responding?

Faith trumps facts?

 

[Truth&Reconciliation]

I think people are being unreasonable about Wiggins. Wiggins said in his book that he always did suspect Armstrong doped during his tour wins. He is on record saying this. This wasn't something he made up yesterday.

What angered him was the revelation that Armstrong doped on the comeback. And, to be fair, it was by no means certain at the time that Armstrong was doping on the comeback. He sure as hell didn't tell anyone about it because the USADA found no witnesses. So there is no hard contradiction from Wiggins. He admits his remarks about the Verbier are HINDSIGHT.

So lets look at the wider context. By 2009, Armstrong's tour wins seemed like a settled issue. Nobody in the right mind imagined he would be stripped of them some years later. I think some of us assumed that in 20 or 30 years time he might admit to what really want on, allowed to do so from the dignity of an armchair. But nobody foresaw this loophole of Postal being a federal sponsor that would allow the federal authorities to put everyone under oath in 2012. Nor did anyone imagine the USADA would go back and remove all 7 wins. Nothing like that had EVER happened in the history of the sport.

So, yes, whilst riders like Wiggins were uncomfortable with the doping of that era, it was a settled issue by 09 that Armstrong had won those tours and he was, at least, the best of that dirty era. At the time, there was a general attitude of 'let bygones be bygones and celebrate the good he has done for the sport'. Human beings do that sort of thing - put settled issues aside and focus on the greater good. And the atmosphere of glasnost was huge - not just for riders who grew up watching Armstrong so were star struck, like Wiggins, but former critics in the peloton like Robbie McEwen and Chris Horner were burying the hatchet. The French public and French politicians were less hostile, journalists were less sniffy, people liked his new role as the old underdog. The tour had been pretty crappy for the last few years so there was a sense of nostalgia - the irritation of this American dominating had gone. Away from a couple of people on the internet, it was very much a love in. That was the context of 09.

Now, was this 100% rational? Would star trek's Dr Spock approve? Well, no, of course not. But that's not how human beings operate. Neither is the criticism that Armstrong receives today 100% rational; the mainstream media is scapegoating him as especially evil and a great fraud for doing what most of them were doing at the time. We know that's not really true, but it would take quite a brave individual to stand up against the prevailing mood and demand Armstrong not be singled out and given more respect and understanding. Yeah, Bradley Wiggins has somewhat been forced by the public mood to put aside his star struck attitude and focus on the side of him that disapproves of doping and relate that to Armstrong. Of course that is playing a part. It doesn't really make him a hypocrite. And if Wiggins is clean, and I think is he, why the hell would he not want to spell that out by distancing himself from Armstrong? If he didn't, you'd all be claiming he was dirty. So please, lets grow up a bit here.