# Wiggo's comments on drugs doubters.



## Globalti (11 Jul 2012)

I can't cut and paste it on here.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2012...or-those-who-doubt-racing-can-be-clean_228247


----------



## dragon72 (11 Jul 2012)

The more i read his comments in that press conference, the more and more it sounds like the sort of inarticulate Armstrong-style counterattack of someone who has something to hide.
Wiggo is probably clean - who knows. I certainly hope he is. 
But a real anti-doper welcomes cynicism, not attacks it.


----------



## Nearly there (11 Jul 2012)

Do you not think its cos sometimes they get sick of the same bullsh*t questions?I mean If your on form you gotta be cheating right?


----------



## MissTillyFlop (11 Jul 2012)

I don't see what the problem is - it was a pretty dickheaded question anyway.

They don't go to all the athletics championships and ask if they're all on drugs relentlessly, do they?

And you must have done next to no research if you are surprised by Wiggins giving such a response - that's what they wanted him to do.


----------



## jdtate101 (11 Jul 2012)

I hope Wiggins goes on being his usual blunt self. Makes a refreshing change from the uber slick PR machines that most professional sportsman employ to handle press.


----------



## yello (11 Jul 2012)

I thought at first was another expletive laden response... then I saw the date on the report. He made reference to it today when asked after the stage, and he was laughing it off. For a guy who claims to not like the cameras, he does a pretty darned good job of it!


----------



## Red Light (11 Jul 2012)

dragon72 said:


> The more i read his comments in that press conference, the more and more it sounds like the sort of inarticulate Armstrong-style counterattack of someone who has something to hide.
> Wiggo is probably clean - who knows. I certainly hope he is.
> But a real anti-doper welcomes cynicism, not attacks it.


 
Wiggo's up to his eyeballs in it donchaknow? He's leading the TdeF and as has been established here with Lance Armstrong, if you're winning the TdeF you must be doping. And as if we needed any more evidence he's only gone and denied it. What more can you say?


----------



## Noodley (11 Jul 2012)

So this is a thread started about something we have already spoken about? By someone looking for some sensation? What a <enter a word that Bradley would use>


----------



## zimzum42 (11 Jul 2012)

He'd just come off riding a full stage, I think he held back as best he could in the face of a cynical, cowardly question (The reporter just lays the blame at the tweeters, when he should have had the balls to ask the question outright)


----------



## threebikesmcginty (11 Jul 2012)

Noodley said:


> So this is a thread started about something we have already spoken about? By someone looking for some sensation? What a <enter a word that Bradley would use>



Are you thinking of a specific Wig-word or any one of the many he used?

shoot
farking self-gratification artist
daffodil
Arse

Were there any others...


----------



## threebikesmcginty (11 Jul 2012)

Oooo one got through!


----------



## iLB (11 Jul 2012)

"You can't blame people for doubting the Tour's credibility for years ahead." Wiggins after his team got chucked off le tour in 2007, he obviously forgot what he said the other day. ​ 





​


----------



## Thomk (11 Jul 2012)

dragon72 said:


> The more i read his comments in that press conference, *the more and more it sounds like the sort of inarticulate Armstrong-style counterattack of someone who has something to hide*.
> Wiggo is probably clean - who knows. I certainly hope he is.
> But a real anti-doper welcomes cynicism, not attacks it.


Does it? Not to me and I can't see where you're coming from at all. Why should he welcome cynicism? He is clean and does not deserve any form of innuendo unless evidence is forthcoming.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (11 Jul 2012)

We've already had this discussion. The OP is a bit late to the party.


----------



## broomwagon (11 Jul 2012)

Top bloke Wiggins. He doesn't suffer fools and I'd of said the same probably.


----------



## iLB (11 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> We've already had this discussion. The OP is a bit late to the party.


 
Does this mean further discussion is not allowed?


----------



## Flying_Monkey (11 Jul 2012)

iLB said:


> Does this mean further discussion is not allowed?


 
Feel free, I just wonder at the motivation of starting a new thread on the subject.


----------



## Chuffy (11 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Feel free, I just wonder at the motivation of starting a new thread on the subject.


Must admit, I clicked on it thinking there was summat new.


----------



## iLB (11 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Must admit, I clicked on it thinking there was summat new.


 
There is this from todays press con, http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-im-not-some-s-t-rider-who-has-come-from-nowhere - taking the i'm tested so much line, won't do much to silence the Lance comparisons.


----------



## Spokesmann (11 Jul 2012)

Nearly there said:


> Do you not think its cos sometimes they get sick of the same bullsh*t questions?I mean If your on form you gotta be cheating right?


 
x2.


----------



## Chuffy (11 Jul 2012)

iLB said:


> There is this from todays press con, http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wiggins-im-not-some-s-t-rider-who-has-come-from-nowhere - taking the i'm tested so much line, won't do much to silence the Lance comparisons.


Ta, hadn't got round to that yet. I can feel his frustration and not everyone wants to be pushed forward as a spokeman (see also: Kurt Cobain) but Brad, it's about more than just you mate...


----------



## Chuffy (11 Jul 2012)

Nearly there said:


> Do you not think its cos sometimes they get sick of the same bullsh*t questions?I mean If your on form you gotta be cheating right?


Yes, but as a fan, don't you get sick of the same bullshit and lies from people like Landis, Rasmussen, Armstrong, Virenque etc etc etc? It might be annoying, but peanuts on Twitter are just a symptom.


----------



## iLB (11 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Ta, hadn't got round to that yet. I can feel his frustration and not everyone wants to be pushed forward as a spokeman (see also: Kurt Cobain) but Brad, it's about more than just you mate...


 
This may just be Kimmage stirring again but I think he has a point http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...n-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx


----------



## lukesdad (11 Jul 2012)

Spokesmann said:


> x2.


 Is that like +1


----------



## festival (11 Jul 2012)

dragon72 said:


> The more i read his comments in that press conference, the more and more it sounds like the sort of inarticulate Armstrong-style counterattack of someone who has something to hide.
> Wiggo is probably clean - who knows. I certainly hope he is.
> But a real anti-doper welcomes cynicism, not attacks it.


 
What is the point of your post? You are talking bollocks.
You don't know him or his personality, thank god he speaks his mind.
What about the quiet type of person who keeps his head down and not only say's nothing to offend but basically say's nothing, like Ullrich, Heras, Basso and Rasmussen to name a few quiet guys who are proven cheats.


----------



## Chuffy (11 Jul 2012)

iLB said:


> This may just be Kimmage stirring again but I think he has a point http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...n-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx


Wheeling out Kimmage in a doping related story is like wheeling out Anne Widecombe in a debate about teenage morality, you know pretty much what he's going to say.

That said, he's been proven right many times before, even if he does come across as a chippy little arse, and he's right about Sky. They made a big thing about transparency and being clean when they started, they need to live up to that. If they need tips on how to do it properly they just need to look at Vaughters and Garmin.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (11 Jul 2012)

Wiggins did volunteer his biological passport data in the past. And he took some crap from other riders for doing it. He hasn't this year.


----------



## Chuffy (11 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Wiggins did volunteer his biological passport data in the past. And he took some crap from other riders for doing it. He hasn't this year.


Blood profile from the 2009 Tour IIRC, which was nice, but of limited value. I don't recall anyone, ever, publishing a full suite of passport data.

Actually, blood data and power files are interesting. They often get suggested as the Holy Grail of transparency but the Clinic cynics won't believe anything at all, ever (and get very confused when you ask them what they _would_ accept) and most fans won't understand the data. It's a bit like Eric Pickles and his endless bollocks about councils releasing data on all spending over £500. The theory was that it would unleash an army of armchair auditors who would righteously hold us pen-pushing bureaucrats to account. In practice all it did was give parasitic scum like the Taxpayers Alliance (maytheydieinafire) something to cherry-pick. In principle it's a good thing but it may not be as enlightening as people think.

Crap from other riders? I don't remember that.


----------



## dragon72 (11 Jul 2012)

festival said:


> What is the point of your post? You are talking bollocks.
> You don't know him or his personality, thank god he speaks his mind.
> What about the quiet type of person who keeps his head down and not only say's nothing to offend but basically say's nothing, like Ullrich, Heras, Basso and Rasmussen to name a few quiet guys who are proven cheats.


 
The point of my post, which I think you either missed or misinterpreted, is that questions surrounding performance at the top level of professional cycling given its history are entirely understandable. 
Also that Wiggins, being intelligent and professional, ought to understand that being open and welcoming to scrutiny is helpful to the honest (such as himself). 
Being offensive (literally and verbally) towards people who ask questions about doping, albeit boring and hackneyed, isn't productive.


----------



## Nearly there (11 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Yes, but as a fan, don't you get sick of the same bullshit and lies from people like Landis, Rasmussen, Armstrong, Virenque etc etc etc? It might be annoying, but peanuts on Twitter are just a symptom.


Yes I get annoyed when people have been found to be cheating no one likes a cheater


----------



## jdtate101 (12 Jul 2012)

iLB said:


> This may just be Kimmage stirring again but I think he has a point http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...n-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx


 
Sounds like Kimmage is a bit sour after being blocked from being 'embedded' with the team. He has lost some of his exclusive access, and as such is probably bitter about it. If I were Brad I'd also not want a journalist hanging round at all hours, asking questions when I'm trying to prepare and concentrate. It's one thing being open and welcoming to journalists, but we all know unlimited access is unhealthy, the example of embedding journalists in units during the gulf war is a great example. Our troops had to spend extra caution and time protecting them instead of fighting the enemy, fearful of everything they did being portrayed in a bad light. In a few occasions of embedding, journalists gave away valuable secret info that could have been used by the enemy prior to operations being launched.

I think sky should be open up to a point. As for the issue of hiring people with a 'suspect' background. Everyone has done things in their past they are not proud of, but to deny people a second chance to prove themselves seems a bit nasty. If doping was so rife in the sport in the late 90's/ early 00's then there will be hardly anyone in a team management position who hasn't been tainted in some, even minor, way.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Jul 2012)

FFS

The one year a Brit could win the TDF, perhaps the greatest individual sporting achievement ever by a Britain, and we get a feckin thread on doping.


----------



## 400bhp (12 Jul 2012)

dragon72 said:


> The point of my post, which I think you either missed or misinterpreted, is that questions surrounding performance at the top level of professional cycling given its history are entirely understandable.
> Also that Wiggins, being intelligent and professional, ought to understand that being open and welcoming to scrutiny is helpful to the honest (such as himself).
> Being offensive (literally and verbally) towards people who ask questions about doping, albeit boring and hackneyed,* isn't productive*.


 
How do you know that - it might be for him. It may motivate him/push him just that little bit extra.

When I get backed into a corner, I usually come out fighting and it has been very productive for me.


----------



## Chuffy (12 Jul 2012)

jdtate101 said:


> Sounds like Kimmage is a bit sour after being blocked from being 'embedded' with the team. He has lost some of his exclusive access, and as such is probably bitter about it. If I were Brad I'd also not want a journalist hanging round at all hours, asking questions when I'm trying to prepare and concentrate. It's one thing being open and welcoming to journalists, but we all know unlimited access is unhealthy, the example of embedding journalists in units during the gulf war is a great example. Our troops had to spend extra caution and time protecting them instead of fighting the enemy, fearful of everything they did being portrayed in a bad light. In a few occasions of embedding, journalists gave away valuable secret info that could have been used by the enemy prior to operations being launched.
> 
> I think sky should be open up to a point. As for the issue of hiring people with a 'suspect' background. Everyone has done things in their past they are not proud of, but to deny people a second chance to prove themselves seems a bit nasty. If doping was so rife in the sport in the late 90's/ early 00's then there will be hardly anyone in a team management position who hasn't been tainted in some, even minor, way.


 Kimmage accused of being bitter = everyone drink!


----------



## asterix (12 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Ta, hadn't got round to that yet. I can feel his frustration and not everyone wants to be pushed forward as a spokeman (see also: Kurt Cobain) but Brad, it's about more than just you mate...


 
He's yellow jersey! It's only about him.



400bhp said:


> FFS
> 
> The one year a Brit could win the TDF, perhaps the greatest individual sporting achievement ever by a Britain, and we get a feckin thread on doping.


 

And this. I feel your pain 400bhp.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Jul 2012)

Kimmage wants to define Sky's transparency for them. They determine their business model and their mode of operations and, inter alia, what transparency means for them, not some chippy journo surely?


----------



## Silver Fox (12 Jul 2012)

If Wiggo is on something, I can only assume it's medication for that strange fungus that's growing out the side of his face.


----------



## Crackle (12 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Wheeling out Kimmage in a doping related story is like wheeling out Anne Widecombe in a debate about teenage morality, you know pretty much what he's going to say.
> 
> That said, he's been proven right many times before, even if he does come across as a chippy little arse, and he's right about Sky. They made a big thing about transparency and being clean when they started, they need to live up to that. If they need tips on how to do it properly they just need to look at Vaughters and Garmin.


 
Yep. There's a few discomforts with Sky for me and Wiggo in particular. At this moment I think they amount to nowt but I was not expecting them because of the initial stance Sky took on set up and because of things Wiggins said and did in the past.

Knocking Kimmage back is one and if stories are to be believed it was on Wiggo's say so, that doesn't look good but it may be no more than the fact he doesn't like him. I can't help feeling that maybe he doesn't like him because he's bad mouthed Lance and broken the Omerta, though I've absolutely no reason to think that.

Which leads on to his open admiration of Indurain and Armstrong. It just doesn't chime right, makes me feel uncomfortable, I wished he'd picked other role models.

From the open and easy style he began with, he's become more closed, more aggressive and a touch arrogant. OK he's not a media spokesman but if he'd just stuck to saying the things he used to say up until about 2010 and how he said it, I'd be happier but then pressure does funny things to people.

Then there's Sky. Froome, Porte, Rodgers, all performing beyond what they did with other teams, obviously Sky's methods work.....

Then there's the back tracking over using Rabobank's doctor, the loss of credibility statement and the we'll be asking some questions of him, what questions, what don't you already know. Even Yates's involvement as an ex-motorola member.

Like I said, it all amounts to nothing but Sky and Wiggo are not handling it well, especially after the bold statment of intent, a clean British winner within five years.

It's taken the edge off it a little bit for me but maybe that's because they raised my expectations and their own too high and they haven't reset them yet.


----------



## tigger (12 Jul 2012)

Oh no not Kimmage. Not sure what to make of him. On the one hand his stance on doping exposure, based on past experience as a pro, is welcomed by me. On the other, his constant negative cynicism seems nothing more than sour grapes from a very (below?) average pro who just wants to make a name for himself.

However, much as I do and still want to truly believe in Brad and the Sky Team, you just can't help wondering and if Kimmage's comments came from anyone else I would be seriously considering them...


----------



## Chuffy (12 Jul 2012)

GregCollins said:


> Kimmage wants to define Sky's transparency for them. They determine their business model and their mode of operations and, inter alia, what transparency means for them, not some chippy journo surely?


 If they (or anyone else) get to choose their definition of transparency then the term becomes completely meaningless.


----------



## Chuffy (12 Jul 2012)

tigger said:


> Oh no not Kimmage. Not sure what to make of him. On the one hand his stance on doping exposure, based on past experience as a pro, is welcomed by me. On the other, his constant negative cynicism seems nothing more than sour grapes from a very (below?) average pro who just wants to make a name for himself.
> 
> However, much as I do and still want to truly believe in Brad and the Sky Team, you just can't help wondering and if Kimmage's comments came from anyone else I would be seriously considering them...


"sour grapes", "average pro who just wants to make a name for himself"? Everyone drink! If we carry on the Kimmage drinking game we'll be under the table by teatime...

Kimmage made a name for himself years ago, with journalism that has stood up as honest and accurate. He doesn't need to put the boot into Sky to make a name for himself. If anything, Sky need people like him to give _them_ the stamp of approval. If you look at his experience with Garmin (and Millar wasn't happy either but dealt with it) he went in as a sceptic and came away full of praise for the team and their way of doing things.

He might not be someone you'd want to go for a pint with, but he doesn't deserve the sneers and slights that many people wheel out.


----------



## beastie (12 Jul 2012)

Crackle said:


> Yep. There's a few discomforts with Sky for me and Wiggo in particular. At this moment I think they amount to nowt but I was not expecting them because of the initial stance Sky took on set up and because of things Wiggins said and did in the past.
> 
> Knocking Kimmage back is one and if stories are to be believed it was on Wiggo's say so, that doesn't look good but it may be no more than the fact he doesn't like him. I can't help feeling that maybe he doesn't like him because he's bad mouthed Lance and broken the Omerta, though I've absolutely no reason to think that.
> 
> ...



Kimmage comes from the right place, but he is also a snide, obnoxious little man with an inflated sense of his own importance. He and Wiggins have not got on for years. 

To say Rodgers is over performing now is bollocks, he's a multiple world champion.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> If they (or anyone else) get to choose their definition of transparency then the term becomes completely meaningless.


And if Kimmage or similar idealists* get to choose it it becomes completely undeliverable.

* and he is a hack, paid by the word, and a hack on a mission.


----------



## Chuffy (12 Jul 2012)

GregCollins said:


> And if Kimmage or similar idealists* get to choose it it becomes completely undeliverable.


Rubbish. If you pick and chose what you want to hide, that is not being transparent.



> * and he is a hack, paid by the word, and a hack on a mission.


Absolute drivel. His recent comments come from an unpaid interview with Shane Stokes of Velonation. And 'hack'? He's a very good, award winning journalist. The only people who don't respect him professionally are idiots who don't want to hear what he has to say.


----------



## tigger (12 Jul 2012)

Chuffy, out of interest, keeping Kimmage out of the frame at the moment, what is your view on the Sky riders current levels of performance and the Team's level of transparency?


----------



## yello (12 Jul 2012)

I respect Kimmage and we need people like him. They may well be a pain-in-the-arse to some but that's exactly why we need them. So I respect what he says and see it only as voicing concerns rather than pointing a finger.

This made me smile though (and I think it was touched on upstream by iLb)



> “When asked about doping, the answers from Wiggins now sound the same as with Armstrong and Floyd.”


 
There's another way of looking at that; liars use the language of truth. That doesn't mean everyone that uses the same language is a liar. But, yes, Wiggins perhaps could have a few more original lines prepared just to respond to the inevitable questions! Wouldn't mean he's telling the truth obviously but it would avoid comparison.


----------



## Slaav (12 Jul 2012)

My God, where to start.... Fortunately, my knowledge of cycling is rather limited so I have no chips or per hates re cycling, especially the pro tour and the individuals concerned.

It appears to me that one of the most obvious first markers for doping/cheating is exceptional performance from a sportsman/woman? Better than previously being a rampant tell tale.

So, by definition, the England RWC team in 2003 MUST have cheated? After all, they had a notoriously beligerant and at times, opaque chap in charge! Sir CLive Woodward. His methods were ground breaking. He had a lot of very good players but got them performing TOGETHER well above levels that anyone had ever done before. They showed their hand at times, and at others, kept their cards very close to their chests. It was obviously at these 'behind closed doors' sessions that the Rugby team must have been discussing how best to cheat or dope? That can be the only possible conclusion according to many???

On the other hand, did SCW actually try some things slightly differently? DId they establish through science and experience that there was a 'better' way to address the sporting conundrums? Maybe, God forbid, they actually broke some boundaries and excelled as a result? Maybe, just maybe, the incredible attention to detail also helped?

Now, I am sure the parallel is fairly obvious but maybe, just maybe, Brailsford is doing things differently? His methods seem to have helped teh GB cycling team in Beiging? Or were all of teh GB cycling team doping/cheating?

Our Brad was a World beater before. He appears to be still able to do it. Sir Chriss Hoy was a World beater - let's hope he still is.

Is Brailsford he modern day Panto villain that SCW was for a long time?

Give me strength....


----------



## Chuffy (12 Jul 2012)

tigger said:


> Chuffy, out of interest, keeping Kimmage out of the frame at the moment, what is your view on the Sky riders current levels of performance and the Team's level of transparency?


I'm no expert, but the guys at Science of Sport are. They have a very good blog with analysis of power/speed data. Their conclusion so far is that cycling is much cleaner that it has been for many years and they have specifically referred to the performance of Wiggins/Froome. That gives me confidence, although it's not outright proof that Rider A is clean. I'd also take heart from the fact that Wiggy's breakout performance in 2009 came when he rode for Garmin and I trust JV. Sky have also recruited very good riders, not donkeys, and I do believe that their application of sports science and 'marginal gains' is a significant factor.

Re: transparency. They could be a lot worse, but they have done things that don't inspire confidence (Leinders, Yates, Wiggy's outburst) and they need to be more pro-active in getting the clean cycling message out there. It's a shame that Wiggy vetoed having Kimmage on board in 2010, that would have done a lot to inspire confidence, _especially_ as Wiggy is known to dislike him.


----------



## Chuffy (12 Jul 2012)

I like this - sums it all up very well - http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/comment-sky-must-send-a-positive-message-to-the-fans/

That Richard Moore, chippy hack, bitter, jealous loser, stirring shoot etc. <hic>


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I like this - sums it all up very well - http://www.cyclesportmag.com/news-and-comment/comment-sky-must-send-a-positive-message-to-the-fans/
> 
> That Richard Moore, chippy hack, bitter, jealous loser, stirring s*** etc. <hic>


"Sky must send a positive message to the fans"

Why? and which fans would believe them, purely on the basis of said message, if they did.

Will every athlete in Team GB competing in London 2012 be required to issue an in competition statement to the effect that they are not now nor have they ever been?

Simple solution for TdF and Olympics. No podiums, no prizes, no medals, until 4 years after the finish. Come back and get your acclaim later, when the detection technology has caught up with the dopers.


----------



## Chuffy (12 Jul 2012)

GregCollins said:


> "Sky must send a positive message to the fans"
> 
> Why? and which fans would believe them, purely on the basis of said message, if they did.
> 
> ...


Not interested in other sports, don't care.

Do you remember Rasmussen squirming in front of the cameras during the 2007 Tour? Or Landis' press conference after the 2006 Tour? Weirdly, it's actually quite hard to tell an outright lie, even Lance preferred the old 'most tested, never tested positive' line. If someone like Wiggy (see also Cadel last year) was prepared to go on the record and speak up for clean cycling, rather than trying to shoot the messenger, that would actually carry a fair bit of weight, because pros really, _really_ don't like to do it. Marco Pinotti and Danny Pate are the only two I can think of who speak up consistantly.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Not interested in other sports, don't care.


 
some of the athletes in Team GB are cyclists....



> Do you remember Rasmussen squirming in front of the cameras during the 2007 Tour? Or Landis' press conference after the 2006 Tour? Weirdly, it's actually quite hard to tell an outright lie, even Lance preferred the old 'most tested, never tested positive' line. If someone like Wiggy (see also Cadel last year) was prepared to go on the record and speak up for clean cycling, rather than trying to shoot the messenger, that would actually carry a fair bit of weight, because pros really, _really_ don't like to do it. Marco Pinotti and Danny Pate are the only two I can think of who speak up consistantly.


 
I take your point but just about every podium finisher in the 00's was doped; they seemed to have no problem lying about it to all and sundry.


----------



## Chuffy (12 Jul 2012)

GregCollins said:


> I take your point but just about every podium finisher in the 00's was doped; they seemed to have no problem lying about it to all and sundry.


Not really, my point was that when asked simple and direct questions they tended to wriggle and take refuge in the old 'I've never tested positive' line of defence rather than tell an outright lie. Wiggy used to speak up very eloquently about being clean and being hugely pissed off by the impact that dopers were having on the sport, specifically in terms of the way that they screwed up the perception of cycling. That stance was very much appreciated by fans and Wiggy used to have a rep for being outspoken on doping. I think he's blown that now, which is a shame.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Not really, my point was that when asked simple and direct questions they tended to wriggle and take refuge in the old 'I've never tested positive' line of defence rather than tell an outright lie. Wiggy used to speak up very eloquently about being clean and being hugely pissed off by the impact that dopers were having on the sport, specifically in terms of the way that they screwed up the perception of cycling. That stance was very much appreciated by fans and Wiggy used to have a rep for being outspoken on doping. I think he's blown that now, which is a shame.


Fair comment. Though I'm sure I've seen plenty of the dopers lie outright about it.

Wiggins used to have a rep for opening mouth before quite engaging his brain and I suspect might still be deserving of that reputation.


----------



## Hont (12 Jul 2012)

I don't subscribe to the "Wiggins has changed his stance" argument. The outburst was pure anger at being called a cheat when he sees that it is only through hard work that he is where he is. His slightly calmer response yesterday, basically said the same thing with less swearing, but added that he does not see himself as a role-model/spokesmen. It's rather unfortunate that we expect someone who is good at a sport to be some sort of politician/deity at the same time.

What I also remember was how damning he was of Contador when he was finally banned and how he praised Cadel for being someone that we could believe in. I can't find a link unfortunately as searching for Wiggins and Evans during the TDF throws up a few red herrings ;-) but that was earlier this year iirc.


----------



## Chuffy (12 Jul 2012)

Hont said:


> I don't subscribe to the "Wiggins has changed his stance" argument. The outburst was pure anger at being called a cheat when he sees that it is only through hard work that he is where he is. His slightly calmer response yesterday, basically said the same thing with less swearing, but added that he does not see himself as a role-model/spokesmen. It's rather unfortunate that we expect someone who is good at a sport to be some sort of politician/deity at the same time.
> 
> What I also remember was how damning he was of Contador when he was finally banned and how he praised Cadel for being someone that we could believe in. I can't find a link unfortunately as searching for Wiggins and Evans during the TDF throws up a few red herrings ;-) but that was earlier this year iirc.


I don't entirely agree that he hasn't changed his stance/attitude, but one outburst does seem to have completely obscured other stuff he's said, which is perhaps a bit disproportionate. That said, in the last year or so, right up to the start of the Tour, he has been praising Lance, which is just depressing.


----------



## Hont (12 Jul 2012)

And as much as we need the cynical approach of someone like Kimmage, I can't help but think he would be far better served to be more dispassionate. It is clearly all very personal to him (note that he remembers a Wiggins tweet from 3 years ago) and so his message is often lost. Which is a shame because the central point he makes about Sky's transparency is a good one.

"the answers from Wiggins now sound the same as with Armstrong and Floyd" , ​for example, is a particularly regrettable comment, as he is damning by innuendo anybody who denies taking drugs. And Wiggins doesn't sound much like the _mostly_ measured, slick and prepared Armstrong to me.

More importantly all this innuendo is only because of an outstanding but credible performance rather than any evidence or even grounds for suspicion. Landis failed a test, amongst other indications Armstrong also failed 3 (something that he conveniently ignores) - the cortisoid test in '99, the one allegedly hushed up by the UCI and the retrospective EPO findings published by L'equipe. I don't know how Wiggins can sound the same when the question is different.


----------



## Chuffy (12 Jul 2012)

Hont said:


> "the answers from Wiggins now sound the same as with Armstrong and Floyd" , ​for example, is a particularly regrettable comment, as he is damning by innuendo anybody who denies taking drugs. And Wiggins doesn't sound much like the _mostly_ measured, slick and prepared Armstrong to me.


I think it's worth pointing out that Shane Stokes was at pains to point out that Kimmage wasn't making any accusations about Sky or Wiggy, just their attitude and the choice of language/tone from Wiggy.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (12 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> I'm no expert, but the guys at Science of Sport are. They have a very good blog with analysis of power/speed data. Their conclusion so far is that cycling is much cleaner that it has been for many years and they have specifically referred to the performance of Wiggins/Froome. That gives me confidence, although it's not outright proof that Rider A is clean. I'd also take heart from the fact that Wiggy's breakout performance in 2009 came when he rode for Garmin and I trust JV. Sky have also recruited very good riders, not donkeys, and I do believe that their application of sports science and 'marginal gains' is a significant factor.
> 
> Re: transparency. They could be a lot worse, but they have done things that don't inspire confidence (Leinders, Yates, Wiggy's outburst) and they need to be more pro-active in getting the clean cycling message out there. It's a shame that Wiggy vetoed having Kimmage on board in 2010, that would have done a lot to inspire confidence, _especially_ as Wiggy is known to dislike him.


 
Agreed on all counts. And Sky have just announced an investigation into Leinders. They've stressed that they know he is not involved in anything dubious for Sky (and he isn't involved with Sky at the TdF at all), but they are worried about 'reputational risk'. We'll see what they conclude.


----------



## BJH (12 Jul 2012)

I have said numerous times that when a rider is given a win after the event or hears that another rider has doped and doesn't go ape shoot then I question them
I want to hear riders protest and get angry I feel more confident that they are clean so for me I applaud him


----------



## Crackle (12 Jul 2012)

beastie said:


> To say Rodgers is over performing now is bollocks, he's a multiple world champion.


 
Yep, I've told myself the same thing. Logic doesn't always banish unease. Though I have to say today's stage certainly removed a lot of the doubts filling my mind.


----------



## BJH (12 Jul 2012)

So Kimmage is essentially peed off Wiggins because he wouldn't let him come on the tour as an embedded journo then

I don't think I would want him there either 

So if Sky use anyone who has ever been near a pro team with any links to a team that dopes that's terrible? Yes it would be great if they didn't but sadly almost impossible to do

They have set out to deliver a British champion and hired the best riders in the world of which NONE have any doping convictions and now have the best team and best back up available

I guess it would be almost impossible to eliminate every single link to doping but you can only take a stance on the riders 

For DSs that would be almost impossible to find look at who HTC used as sprint coach

But Garmin is ok despite having JV as team manager according to Kimmage?

The only point I accept in his piece is the anti LA point because it does seem like the riders are all scared to comment at the moment so Kimmage has a fair point on that

For the rest it's innuendo and bile from someone who's book I respect but who's attitude I have no time for he comes across as an arrogant pain in the butt who thinks it's his right to be in for the whole of the tour with sky or nothing else

He's bitter and the comments he makes in his book regarding fans and cyclists are disparaging to us all


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Jul 2012)

BJH said:


> I have said numerous times that when a rider is given a win after the event or hears that another rider has doped and doesn't go ape s*** then I question them


Simple. They want to win it on the road, not in an office/courtroom.


----------



## Chuffy (12 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Agreed on all counts. And Sky have just announced an investigation into Leinders. They've stressed that they know he is not involved in anything dubious for Sky (and he isn't involved with Sky at the TdF at all), but they are worried about 'reputational risk'. We'll see what they conclude.


Yeah. Which is a bit late really and would we be having this conversation if DB & co had done due diligence on Leinders in the first place? They're only investigating long after the Twitter bird has flown the coop. Not great.


----------



## User482 (13 Jul 2012)

I wonder if leading athletes in other drug-tainted sports are subject to the same innuendo and questionning? For example, I make five of the last seven 100 metres olympic champions to be drugs cheats...what sort of treatment has Usain Bolt been given?

Not a rhetorical question, BTW.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (13 Jul 2012)

User482 said:


> I wonder if leading athletes in other drug-tainted sports are subject to the same innuendo and questionning? For example, I make five of the last seven 100 metres olympic champions to be drugs cheats...what sort of treatment has Usain Bolt been given?


 
Some have noted the lax nature of drug testing within Jamaican athletics, and even so there are quite a few athletes caught - 5 at the national champs in 2009, one of their top sprinters last year... but there certainly isn't the same level of attention paid by the media or fans as for cycling.


----------



## User482 (13 Jul 2012)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Some have noted the lax nature of drug testing within Jamaican athletics, and even so there are quite a few athletes caught - 5 at the national champs in 2009, one of their top sprinters last year... but there certainly isn't the same level of attention paid by the media or fans as for cycling.


 
I only referred to Bolt because he's the current champion...it was more of a general point that I perceive there to be a higher level of suspicion aimed at a TdF champion than there is at a 100 metre champion. Yet the drugs records of the TdF and olympic 100 metres in the last 30 years are comparably awful.


----------



## thom (13 Jul 2012)

*Bradley Wiggins: I can never dope because it would cost me everything*


----------



## Hont (13 Jul 2012)

Just read that article. Kind of kills the thread really. :-)


----------



## Hont (13 Jul 2012)

Unless everyone wants to talk about Usain Bolt. It beats me how someone who runs 2 tenths faster than Ben Johnson is not treated as a complete joke.

For me cycling has a way to go but is addressing its issues, as Wiggins states in that article. So many other sports are not. Athletic sprinting being a very obvious example.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (13 Jul 2012)

User482 said:


> I only referred to Bolt because he's the current champion...it was more of a general point that I perceive there to be a higher level of suspicion aimed at a TdF champion than there is at a 100 metre champion. Yet the drugs records of the TdF and olympic 100 metres in the last 30 years are comparably awful.


 
Absolutely, and if anything, athletics has a worse record.


----------



## Red Light (13 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Not really, my point was that when asked simple and direct questions they tended to wriggle and take refuge in the old 'I've never tested positive' line of defence rather than tell an outright lie. Wiggy used to speak up very eloquently about being clean and being hugely pissed off by the impact that dopers were having on the sport, specifically in terms of the way that they screwed up the perception of cycling. That stance was very much appreciated by fans and Wiggy used to have a rep for being outspoken on doping. I think he's blown that now, which is a shame.


 
I can think of plenty of other athletes who used to speak eloquently about being clean. Until they were caught doping that is. What do you expect them to do? Speak eloquently about their doping regimes? Every cyclist in competition will profess being clean whether they are clean or not.


----------



## lejogger (13 Jul 2012)

thom said:


> *Bradley Wiggins: I can never dope because it would cost me everything*


Thought this was a really good piece.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Jul 2012)

Hont said:


> Just read that article. Kind of kills the thread really. :-)


 Good stuff and nice to hear. There's _just_ enough in there for the #UKPostal twits to latch onto (after all, LA used the 'I'd never dope because of my medical history' line, which was a big hit with his fans) but also lots forWiggy's supporters. For people like me (mildy concerned sceptic but not a cynic) it's reassuring, I just hope he accepts that he needs to keep banging that drum.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> Good stuff and nice to hear. There's _just_ enough in there for the #UKPostal twits to latch onto (after all, LA used the 'I'd never dope because of my medical history' line, which was a big hit with his fans) but also lots for Wiggy's supporters. For people like me (cheering quietly but still mildy concerned) it's reassuring, *I just hope he accepts that he needs to keep banging that drum*.


and then he will be accused of protesting too much?


----------



## thom (13 Jul 2012)

Red Light said:


> What do you expect them to do? Speak eloquently about their doping regimes?


What do you expect a clean cyclist to do ? Talk about something they don't do ?


----------



## Chuffy (13 Jul 2012)

GregCollins said:


> and then he will be accused of protesting too much?


 I don't think so. I've never seen complaints about cyclists overdoing that. It's always complaints that they don't say enough. The obvious caveat being that he can't afford to do anything daft that undercuts what he says (cf Frank 'my contact with Dr Fuentes is purely for training plans and nothing more...' Schleck).


----------



## yello (13 Jul 2012)

thom said:


> *Bradley Wiggins: I can never dope because it would cost me everything*


 
That's everything and more that I could have hoped for him to say.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jul 2012)

Loved what today's stage winner had to say.


----------



## yello (13 Jul 2012)

Not afraid to address the subject is he? The anniversary of Tom Simpson's death too, I didn't realise that.


----------



## Red Light (13 Jul 2012)

thom said:


> What do you expect a clean cyclist to do ? Talk about something they don't do ?


 
Exactly. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Not afraid to address the subject is he? The anniversary of Tom Simpson's death too, I didn't realise that.


I bet Wiggy knew.

BTW Greg/Yello - if those two posts just now are a spoiler I will be greatly vexed...


----------



## yello (13 Jul 2012)

Nope, I can assure you that Tommy Simpson did not win today's stage. And, yep, Wiggin's mentioned Simpson too.

I was most careful (as was Greg) not to reveal the name of the stage winner.... I think. I've read the post several times to see if it was implied though. I hope not!


----------



## Chuffy (13 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Nope, I can assure you that Tommy Simpson did not win today's stage. And, yep, Wiggin's mentioned Simpson too.
> 
> I was most careful (as was Greg) not to reveal the name of the stage winner.


Fair enough. I was just adding 2 + 2 and getting Wiggy 5.

...of course, if it _is_ Wiggy I'll be putting a bat up your nighdress.


----------



## yello (13 Jul 2012)

We're safe then.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Jul 2012)

Git!


----------



## BJH (13 Jul 2012)

Thanks for the link to the wiggins article absolutely superb and what we all need to hear

Ditto on Millar today to great to see him holding his hand up to his past

All in all 4 Brit stage winners and first 2 places on GC 

Brilliant


----------



## Chuffy (13 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> Nope, I can assure you that Tommy Simpson did not win today's stage. And, yep, Wiggin's mentioned Simpson too.
> 
> I was most careful (as was Greg) not to reveal the name of the stage winner.... I think. I've read the post several times to see if it was implied though. I hope not!


As soon as I saw who was in the break, I _knew_! Still....WOOO!!!!!!!!


----------



## iLB (13 Jul 2012)

Brad in the press conference earlier today, expanding on his column and sweargate http://soundcloud.com/cycling-central/tour-de-france-stage-12


----------



## yello (14 Jul 2012)

Chuffy said:


> As soon as I saw who was in the break, I _knew_!


 
I realised you would. It was a give away under the circumstances. I realised too late, the damage was done. My apologies.


----------



## Chuffy (14 Jul 2012)

yello said:


> I realised you would. It was a give away under the circumstances. I realised too late, the damage was done. My apologies.


Not a problem. Baggy and I were still bouncing on the sofa and shouting 'GO MILLAR!' anyway.


----------

