Wiggins' Discusses Lance and Landis

[ultimobici]

Then there's the whole Landis has no credibility thing. Uh Brad, do the Italian police who raided Popo's house have credibility? Do other rider's who have confirmed what Floyd said have credibility? Haven't things advanced a bit since May?

I don't think you've read Wiggins's comments properly.

“I think you have to question Landis’ credibility because he lied under oath before and the stories that you hear about him drinking and things like that and you know, [making] telephone calls to people I know, threatening them with things, you just think that the guy appears to not all be there. So when you see these kinds of claims in the press you have to question his credibility because it’s almost like it’s coming from a mad man, but at the same time maybe that’s all borne out of frustration and things.

“You just never know but you just look at the way his life has gone over the last five years and you think there’s one person who it would have been so easy to have just admitted it when it happened in 2006, come clean if he did do it and he would have been back racing in a professional team making pretty good money. It’s quite sad how his life has gone away, just dwindled away and now there’s all these claims and counter claims and it’s quite a sad story for him.”

He's not rubbishing Landis's credibility out of hand rather pointing out that his prior actions have undermined his credibility which is true. No matter how true his allegations are there is always a grain of doubt about their author.

 

[hrotha]

I don't think you've read Wiggins's comments properly.



He's not rubbishing Landis's credibility out of hand rather pointing out that his prior actions have undermined his credibility which is true. No matter how true his allegations are there is always a grain of doubt about their author.

Oh gods, is Wiggins saying if Landis had come completely clean in 2006 he wouldn't have been blacklisted? Maybe Wiggo prefers Millar's way of coming clean?

 

[Benotti69]

I don't think you've read Wiggins's comments properly.

He's not rubbishing Landis's credibility out of hand rather pointing out that his prior actions have undermined his credibility which is true. No matter how true his allegations are there is always a grain of doubt about their author.

so if the biggest liar in cycling's history, LA, turns around and says i doped you would say there is a grain of doubt about it.

Landis confirmed what Andreu has said, what Stephen Swart has said, a guy who stood to gain nothing but cleared his conscience for himself and so his family knew the truth about his sporting history.

no doubt Landis is telling the truth.

 

[Moncoutie]

Jesus Brad, where have your testicles gone???

 

[happychappy]

Maybe Wiggo prefers Millar's way of coming clean?

You mean Millar's way of blaming everyone but himself while being a slimey little toad who makes sniveling little comments to the press about other riders doing the very thing he did/still does?
He'd love it!

 

[Benotti69]

Jesus Brad, where have your testicles gone???

are you suggesting we start calling wigans 'noballs', or 'sensapalle' or 'nopaleta'

 

[auscyclefan94]

Wiggins has been doing some reading

@bradwiggins

The traffic wardens are out in force on the reply's, funny stuff

 

[Moncoutie]

are you suggesting we start calling wigans 'noballs', or 'sensapalle' or 'nopaleta'

Maybe hes decided immitation is the best form of flattery?

 

[Benotti69]

Wiggins has been doing some reading

@bradwiggins

comments like that from wigans shows how omertaised he has become.

you know when these guys post comments like' funny stuff' they dont find it funny at all

 

[ultimobici]

so if the biggest liar in cycling's history, LA, turns around and says i doped you would say there is a grain of doubt about it.

Landis confirmed what Andreu has said, what Stephen Swart has said, a guy who stood to gain nothing but cleared his conscience for himself and so his family knew the truth about his sporting history.

no doubt Landis is telling the truth.

Far from it. I have long thought that Armstrong was too good to be true.

However I can see that Landis's actions in the wake of the 2006 Tour make his testimony vulnerable to attack. In the same way as a convicted criminal being used to back up other testimony, Landis's testimony is not as strong as if he had fessed up at the time or just kept schtum.

The Andreus, Swart & Emma O'Reilly are much more reliable as they have not sullied their own reputations a la Landis.

 

[euanli]

I've got a feeling you guys would only be happy if he had launched a tirade against Contador and followed it up with another one about Armstrong.

Sometimes I wonder about what I would be like in the same position. Its like I know a guy is didling in sales. I have no evidence, I just know he is. I can't go off shouting my mouth about it, it just singles me out and makes me the one who gets prosecuted by me colleagues. I could take the risk and speak out loud and find others are in the same situation but again there is that huge risk if noone does follow. No once he gets caught I can speak about it, there is no risk.

Its different commenting on someone who might have doped to someone who has doped. And in relation to someone you work around who might have doped, you just gotta play it safe for your own well being. Vaughters knows everything but is keeping it very very close.

 

[Anonymous]

very dissapointing if this is what brad said and meant. I thought he was a bit more gutsy about dopers.

Wouldnt surprise me though if hes just winding everyone up. Hes thrown the most tested and never tested positive in their at least twice. He must know thats not true. In all likelehood, Cav, Cancellara, maybe even valverde are the most tested.

 

[Darryl Webster]

Hes towing the party line so he can can act suprised and dissapointed when the case against Lance is finaly put to bed. He`d not look such a tool if he just kept quite.
Maturity isnt his strong point is it.

If ya reading this Brad, Hi !

 

[Benotti69]

Far from it. I have long thought that Armstrong was too good to be true.

However I can see that Landis's actions in the wake of the 2006 Tour make his testimony vulnerable to attack. In the same way as a convicted criminal being used to back up other testimony, Landis's testimony is not as strong as if he had fessed up at the time or just kept schtum.

The Andreus, Swart & Emma O'Reilly are much more reliable as they have not sullied their own reputations a la Landis.

but when the convicted criminal backs what others have been saying you doubt his words, of course, but th when others come out after and confirm it what moe do you need?

the raid on Popo's house and finding the evidence that Landis spoke about in relation to everyday doping on the team.

 

[rolfrae]

very dissapointing if this is what brad said and meant. I thought he was a bit more gutsy about dopers.

Wouldnt surprise me though if hes just winding everyone up. Hes thrown the most tested and never tested positive in their at least twice. He must know thats not true. In all likelehood, Cav, Cancellara, maybe even valverde are the most tested.

It's very hopeful of you to suggest he's just winding people up. He's being diplomatic for whatever reason, be it the effect of Sky's media training kicking in, protecting the 'good image' of the sport that pays his considerable wages, or simply defending the dopers' omerta.

 

[auscyclefan94]

very dissapointing if this is what brad said and meant. I thought he was a bit more gutsy about dopers.

Wouldnt surprise me though if hes just winding everyone up. Hes thrown the most tested and never tested positive in their at least twice. He must know thats not true. In all likelehood, Cav, Cancellara, maybe even valverde are the most tested.

Come on Dim, don't give us that **** that he is jokning around and trying to wind people up. That's a load of ****!

 

[Roland Rat]

very dissapointing if this is what brad said and meant. I thought he was a bit more gutsy about dopers.

Wouldnt surprise me though if hes just winding everyone up. Hes thrown the most tested and never tested positive in their at least twice. He must know thats not true. In all likelehood, Cav, Cancellara, maybe even valverde are the most tested.

From his point of view - he's probably heard all kinds of *** from JV etc about LA and the UCI, and he's seen riders that cross him get pulled up by the UCI. The UCI have all riders in their pockets with the Biopassport - see Sideshow Bob* - so would you poke the hornet's nest in that situation? I wouldn't - there's nothing to gain and you only get yourself on the blacklist. It's easy for us, there are no comebacks.

* which may be why he wants BP values online - the UCI couldn't really pull a Pellizotti then.

 

[andy1234]

comments like that from wigans shows how omertaised he has become.

you know when these guys post comments like' funny stuff' they dont find it funny at all

Don't put yourself down, some of the things said around here are f***ing hilarious.

I want everyone who has a suspicion or doubt about the credibility of a work colleague (regardless of evidence, and before a court of law decides) to go in to work today and tell EVERYONE who will listen.
Go on, don't be selfish, don't worry about what the consequences might be, be brave!
Report back when you have finished and let me know how you get on....

 

[Chuffy]

I want everyone who has a suspicion or doubt about the credibility of a work colleague (regardless of evidence, and before a court of law decides) to go in to work today and tell EVERYONE who will listen.
Go on, don't be selfish, don't worry about what the consequences might be, be brave!
Report back when you have finished and let me know how you get on....

That's a good analogy, but it's not a popular way of looking at things round here.

 

[hrotha]

Don't put yourself down, some of the things said around here are f***ing hilarious.

I want everyone who has a suspicion or doubt about the credibility of a work colleague (regardless of evidence, and before a court of law decides) to go in to work today and tell EVERYONE who will listen.
Go on, don't be selfish, don't worry about what the consequences might be, be brave!
Report back when you have finished and let me know how you get on....

Look, there's a difference between not saying anything against Lance, and saying stuff in favour of Lance.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

why thank you very much an i notice a rise back to a normal level in his hemoglobin near the end of a week grueling race.

rest assured chuffer, the has been jerked back in.

There's a lot of factors that can effect where the levels are, especially as they're not moving much at all.

The only remotely suspicious thing about those values is how uniformly unsuspicious the TdF ones are. But that way madness lies.

Wasn't it LA who published, then changed, then retracted his figures?

On the subject of the article, it's clear that Wiggins, and the rest of Sky (and Garmin and HTC) are quite comfortable with the BioPassport and are confidant it will show them to be clean.
However other teams clearly have a lot of suspect BioPassport results and those who have been banned are just the most extreme few cases.
Who actually is clean is a slightly different question.

As for the fawning over Lance, it's all a bit strange. Just when LA is being lead to the guillotine, Wiggins starts to defend him and question the case against him. Maybe he's just a contrarian. It's sad though.

 

[Anonymous]

It's very hopeful of you to suggest he's just winding people up. He's being diplomatic for whatever reason, be it the effect of Sky's media training kicking in, protecting the 'good image' of the sport that pays his considerable wages, or simply defending the dopers' omerta.

I think hes towing the line to an extent. How many current riders have stood up and said they think lance dopes.

The repeated use of the most tested line, he knows that isnt true. Simple maths says cav, cancellara and a host of others are more tested. Wouldnt surprise me at all if he added that in to wind up everyone on here.

Just sayin.

 

[euanli]

That's a good analogy, but it's not a popular way of looking at things round here.

Thats the one I pulled out on the previous page. There is a big difference between shouting down a cyclist who has been caught and sanction, and one who has had rumours of doping.

 

[Benotti69]

Don't put yourself down, some of the things said around here are f***ing hilarious.

I want everyone who has a suspicion or doubt about the credibility of a work colleague (regardless of evidence, and before a court of law decides) to go in to work today and tell EVERYONE who will listen.
Go on, don't be selfish, don't worry about what the consequences might be, be brave!
Report back when you have finished and let me know how you get on....

especially if they are using illegal drugs and introducing others in the company to these drugs, defrauding the company, cheating to make more money than other employees, lying etc, but be careful the CEO might be in on it.

If someone was doing all this and jepordising the future of the company you would need to be a big a$$h@le to keep your mouth shut. maybe that's you wanting to be that sh!thead

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Don't put yourself down, some of the things said around here are f***ing hilarious.

I want everyone who has a suspicion or doubt about the credibility of a work colleague (regardless of evidence, and before a court of law decides) to go in to work today and tell EVERYONE who will listen.
Go on, don't be selfish, don't worry about what the consequences might be, be brave!
Report back when you have finished and let me know how you get on....

The 'work colleague' is under investigation by the FBI. It would be astonishing if there wasn't a lot of talk about this 'work colleague', not much of it complementary. In cycling however, things appear to work differently.


P.S. For general information, the phrase is, 'Toeing the line'