Wiggins, Clinic respect?

[cadelcrybaby]

I'd take unassuming Aussie

Good luck finding one of those

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Non sequitor. Stick to the programme, Dr.


Anger at someone and undermining them are not mutually exclusive - indeed, they go together rather well. And you know that rightly. It is completely unconvincing to attempt to suggest there must be a choice between them.

I didn't suggest it, I am querying it. You seem convinced it was just an angry outburst, I am questioning why.

If you listen to the tone of the actual quote, and it was recorded, after all, his anger is patently obvious. To suggest otherwise is naive, or dishonest. So lets assume naive.

Indeed anger or annoyance would be understandable, but he actually avoided the question and attempted to ridicule those who questioned him.

You can assume all you wish Wiggins (don't know why, but) but do not assume anything about me, as you have been wrong every time
You need clarification or to ask me something relevant, I am right here.

I have to say, it always amused me just how personally offended certain people seemed to get at that rant. As if they (or we if I include myself in the anonymous masses)really mattered in the big scheme of things.

Can't help thinking if Wiggins realised just how offended, angry and upset some of his 'targets' were by that rant, it would have greatly amused him. Sometimes it appears to have been more successful in that regard than even he might have hoped.

Can you name these certain people?

Just in case you were attempting to put me in that group, I don't follow him on twitter.
Also, you suggest that these people don't really matter in the big scheme of things - yet that Wiggins would find it amusing that he got his 'targets' (ignoring his big track back the following day).

 

[JimmyFingers]

If I could speak Spanish, I'd agree. Otherwise Evans hands down. I'd take unassuming Aussie over drunkard Pom any day of the century.

I've heard you wave the non-partisan reasons for your obsession with Wiggins, now you call him a 'drunkard Pom'? That's all class

 

[martinvickers]

I didn't suggest it, I am querying it. You seem convinced it was just an angry outburst, I am questioning why.



Indeed anger or annoyance would be understandable, but he actually avoided the question and attempted to ridicule those who questioned him.

You can assume all you wish Wiggins (don't know why, but) but do not assume anything about me, as you have been wrong every time
You need clarification or to ask me something relevant, I am right here.


Can you name these certain people?

Just in case you were attempting to put me in that group, I don't follow him on twitter.
Also, you suggest that these people don't really matter in the big scheme of things - yet that Wiggins would find it amusing that he got his 'targets' (ignoring his big track back the following day).

Oh, dear, are we doing this false pedant thing again? sigh...

 

[JimmyFingers]

He's a lot of fun at parties

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh, dear, are we doing this false pedant thing again? sigh...

Deflection noted.

You bring up a series of strawman and irrelevant arguments, if you don't make them, I don't had to cut through them.

 

[martinvickers]

Deflection noted.

You bring up a series of strawman and irrelevant arguments, if you don't make them, I don't had to cut through them.

Whatever nonsense makes you happy, Doc.

You have a distinct style and a technique in here, i know that. Deflection by claim to false pedantry. You're quite good at it, too. That's fine. Good luck. But I don't have to play along and pretend it's a worthwhile way to debate. Enjoy yourself.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Whatever nonsense makes you happy, Doc.

You have a distinct style and a technique in here, i know that. Deflection by claim to false pedantry. You're quite good at it, too. That's fine. Good luck. But I don't have to play along and pretend it's a worthwhile way to debate. Enjoy yourself.

If you want to debate - then discuss Wiggins, (not me) I am more than happy to do so.

Your "distinct style and technique" is to introduce strawman, deflect and make it personal by attempting to dismiss me as either naive or dishonest, falsely pedantic etc.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

Contador= convicted and unrepentant doper.

I'm surprised some of you give this guy a free pass. He's a crook. Stripped of Tour just like Armstrong, get real.

You could not be more wrong.

 

[cadelcrybaby]

You could not be more wrong.

Wrong about what? Some people giving him a free pass, Contador being a crook or Contador being stripped of a win like Armstrong?

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Wrong about what? Some people giving him a free pass, Contador being a crook or Contador being stripped of a win like Armstrong?

Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Contadeflection.

 

[cadelcrybaby]

Wiggins, Clinic respect?

Contadeflection.

Perhaps you missed the initial post where I invoked Contador and Evans? It was to do with whom I'd rather go out for a drink, as we were discussing Wiggins personality.

There is plenty of criticism of Wiggins around here. Some of it entirely justified, some of it moronic. A little banter about hypothetical drinking partners doesn't go amiss.

If that deflects you from your droning hatred of Wiggins then my apologies.

 

[del1962]

Of course Wiggins is guilty, that is what the clinicians tell us, we just need to find the charge and frame the evidence

 

[cadelcrybaby]

Well, I wouldn't bet anything on any one of them being clean, and as a Tour winner I'd include Wiggins in that.

At least we know Contador is a doper

 

[del1962]

Well, I wouldn't bet anything on any one of them being clean, and as a Tour winner I'd include Wiggins in that.

At least we know Contador is a doper

It doesnt matter whehter you think they may or maybe doping, certain clinicians know Wiggins is doping, we may have our doubts, but we are not blessed with the special esoteric knowledge of the clinic special ones.

 

[cadelcrybaby]

Well we've got to have something to talk about, and it's not like anything here matters ;o)

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

If that deflects you from your monomaniac droning hatred of Wiggins then my apologies.

Bingo.

10 things.

 

[Benotti69]

It doesnt matter whehter you think they may or maybe doping, certain clinicians know Wiggins is doping, we may have our doubts, but we are not blessed with the special esoteric knowledge of the clinic special ones.

It is not like cycling never had/has a doping problem. If some members of the clinic dont beleive the hype about a cleaner peloton it is more than likely that they are right based on the history of the sport, from the UCI, to doping teams, doping DS, doping doctors who are all still in the sport in case you may not have noticed.

We have been told by the very same that the sport has 'changed' many times before. We are now in one of these times where we are being sold a 'change'. But what has changed? Nothing.

I am of the belief that the sport needs to prove it is clean before it can expect to be believed. We need to see more testing by an independent anti doping body, regurlar blood tests (weekly) and hear riders talking the anti doping talk and demanding it.

What we are hearing is the sound of silence from the peloton with the odd name calling towards those who dare criticise the patrons of the sport.

If Wiggins wants to be believed he is clean, let him prove it.

 

[sniper]

If Wiggins wants to be believed he is clean, let him prove it.

Before 2008 he seemed to have a genuine anti-doping stance. Perhaps he abandoned this stance as soon as he understood how common doping is in the road-peloton and how good the financial reward is.

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

It is not like cycling never had/has a doping problem. If some members of the clinic dont beleive the hype about a cleaner peloton it is more than likely that they are right based on the history of the sport, from the UCI, to doping teams, doping DS, doping doctors who are all still in the sport in case you may not have noticed.

We have been told by the very same that the sport has 'changed' many times before. We are now in one of these times where we are being sold a 'change'. But what has changed? Nothing. t

I am of the belief that the sport needs to prove it is clean before it can expect to be believed. We need to see more testing by an independent anti doping body, regurlar blood tests (weekly) and hear riders talking the anti doping talk and demanding it.

What we are hearing is the sound of silence from the peloton with the odd name calling towards those who dare criticise the patrons of the sport.

If Wiggins wants to be believed he is clean, let him prove it.

Good post. Regardless of whether you think Wiggins does or doesn't dope the fact is cycling has brought this upon itself. You cannot claim to be clean without showing some proof.

 

[JimmyFingers]

It is not like cycling never had/has a doping problem. If some members of the clinic dont beleive the hype about a cleaner peloton it is more than likely that they are right based on the history of the sport, from the UCI, to doping teams, doping DS, doping doctors who are all still in the sport in case you may not have noticed.

We have been told by the very same that the sport has 'changed' many times before. We are now in one of these times where we are being sold a 'change'. But what has changed? Nothing.

I am of the belief that the sport needs to prove it is clean before it can expect to be believed. We need to see more testing by an independent anti doping body, regurlar blood tests (weekly) and hear riders talking the anti doping talk and demanding it.

What we are hearing is the sound of silence from the peloton with the odd name calling towards those who dare criticise the patrons of the sport.

If Wiggins wants to be believed he is clean, let him prove it.

I'll echo P3edro and say this is a good post and worthy sentiment. However this is much less to do with the riders and everything to do with the UCI. The riders certainly should be supporting and even campaigning for such a change, but they can't make that change themselves.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

I'll echo P3edro and say this is a good post and worthy sentiment. However this is much less to do with the riders and everything to do with the UCI. The riders certainly should be supporting and even campaigning for such a change, but they can't make that change themselves.

Sure the UCI bosses are the root cause of the problem, but riders must take more responsibility if they want to get credibility back. They can start by firing Bugno as their representative.

 

[cadelcrybaby]

It is not like cycling never had/has a doping problem. If some members of the clinic dont beleive the hype about a cleaner peloton it is more than likely that they are right based on the history of the sport, from the UCI, to doping teams, doping DS, doping doctors who are all still in the sport in case you may not have noticed.

We have been told by the very same that the sport has 'changed' many times before. We are now in one of these times where we are being sold a 'change'. But what has changed? Nothing.

I am of the belief that the sport needs to prove it is clean before it can expect to be believed. We need to see more testing by an independent anti doping body, regurlar blood tests (weekly) and hear riders talking the anti doping talk and demanding it.

What we are hearing is the sound of silence from the peloton with the odd name calling towards those who dare criticise the patrons of the sport.

If Wiggins wants to be believed he is clean, let him prove it.

I have to be honest here and say that in the grand scheme of things that I worry about, doping cyclists are somewhere lower down the list. I guess I've always watched it with a cynics eye....even heroes like Hinault and Lemond would not be assumed squeaky clean by me....even with an absence of rumour. Thinking about it, remember the 80's TdF tour stage where Hinault and Lemond dropped the entire peloton? They got so far ahead they were able to just cruise along chatting. How would that be viewed if it happened today??

But Sniper makes some good points here. If you are really bothered about clean cycling (and I'm not massively) then you'd need proof.

It's here that we run into a dilemma... what proof do you want? The bio-passport is rubbished by some as being ineffective, or an aid for clever dopers (my view), and of course testing has a very poor record of catching cheats. You can't test for substances that you don't realised are being abused, and you need a test in the first place. There will always be the potential for new forms of doping that may take years to detect.

It seems to me that we'll never be in a position to say cycling is clean, and be able to be confident about it.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Sure the UCI bosses are the root cause of the problem, but riders must take more responsibility if they want to get credibility back. They can start by firing Bugno as their representative.

Clearly the riders need to shoulder the responsibility for riding clean, but it's the UCI's job to police that, and they need to take action, surrender the responsibility to an independent body, and ensure that the measures that body takes means the fans can watch the sport with trust rather than cynicism.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

Clearly the riders need to shoulder the responsibility for riding clean, but it's the UCI's job to police that, and they need to take action, surrender the responsibility to an independent body, and ensure that the measures that body takes means the fans can watch the sport with trust rather than cynicism.

again, I agree but just like in any other complex organisation, everybody can point fingers or they can do something about it. Riders are doing very little if anything. No pressure on UCI, the Bugno debacle, not yelling at dope doctors etc. It tells me very few of them are clean and don't want to change the current model.