Floyd -- he wrote us a letter...
Comments
-
cougie wrote:I think if I were a pro cyclist - I'd be very wary of slagging Lance off. He is a big player and doesnt take criticism easily. Would you risk sabotaging your career for the sake of a twitter comment you made once ?
exactly I rest all our cases...."If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
The 'old Wiggins argued that mere '1% suspicion or doubt' constituted sufficient grounds to exclude a team from the sport.Pross wrote:FFS I'm in danger of sounding like a Wiggo / Sky fanboy...but why is he expected to comment on this issue - at present it is a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations made by a convicted PED user against several other riders from what I can tell... unless he suddenly produces some hard evidence and I can't think what hard evidence he can possible provide.
If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is involved in any way in a drugs ring or doping or working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France - as simple as that - they shouldn't even be given a racing licence until they can prove that they are, through stringent testing procedures, that they are not involved in any wrong doing - until then the ASO shouldn't have them in the Tour de France and the UCI should not have them in the sport.
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/si ... script.asp0 -
-
Yes, it's the old story: power + a willingness to bully people into submission + the spinelessness on the part of the masses = a continuation of the status quo.mididoctors wrote:
exactly I rest all our cases....cougie wrote:I think if I were a pro cyclist - I'd be very wary of slagging Lance off. He is a big player and doesnt take criticism easily. Would you risk sabotaging your career for the sake of a twitter comment you made once ?0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
The 'old Wiggins argued that mere '1% suspicion or doubt' constituted sufficient grounds to exclude a team from the sport.Pross wrote:FFS I'm in danger of sounding like a Wiggo / Sky fanboy...but why is he expected to comment on this issue - at present it is a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations made by a convicted PED user against several other riders from what I can tell... unless he suddenly produces some hard evidence and I can't think what hard evidence he can possible provide.
If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is involved in any way in a drugs ring or doping or working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France - as simple as that - they shouldn't even be given a racing licence until they can prove that they are, through stringent testing procedures, that they are not involved in any wrong doing - until then the ASO shouldn't have them in the Tour de France and the UCI should not have them in the sport.
The "New" Wiggins may well still believe that... He just hasn't said it.
Likewise, Wiggins old or new has no impact on who is invited to the Tour. He can't affect this issue in any way, other than negatively for himself and his team. What would you do in his shoes?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
The 'old Wiggins argued that mere '1% suspicion or doubt' constituted sufficient grounds to exclude a team from the sport.Pross wrote:FFS I'm in danger of sounding like a Wiggo / Sky fanboy...but why is he expected to comment on this issue - at present it is a bunch of unsubstantiated allegations made by a convicted PED user against several other riders from what I can tell... unless he suddenly produces some hard evidence and I can't think what hard evidence he can possible provide.
If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is involved in any way in a drugs ring or doping or working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France - as simple as that - they shouldn't even be given a racing licence until they can prove that they are, through stringent testing procedures, that they are not involved in any wrong doing - until then the ASO shouldn't have them in the Tour de France and the UCI should not have them in the sport.
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/si ... script.asp
Fair enough but what is there to say that he doesn't still hold that opinion? What would be the point in hime regurgitating something he is already on record as having said? That quote was presumably in an interview where he was asked the question yet some appear to believe that him not updating his Twitter account to say something similar now is a sign of him going soft on drugs to protect his new found status as a "contender". Surely the only test is to ask him the same question now as he was asked back then? I suspect the answer would be very similar. As others have said he has been quiet for the past week anyway, perhaps concentrating on a high GC finish having been stung by comments from people writing him off?
0 -
As those who know me would attest, I would speak my mind and damn the consequences.disgruntledgoat wrote:Wiggins old or new has no impact on who is invited to the Tour. He can't affect this issue in any way, other than negatively for himself and his team. What would you do in his shoes?0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
As those who know me would attest, I would speak my mind and damn the consequences.disgruntledgoat wrote:Wiggins old or new has no impact on who is invited to the Tour. He can't affect this issue in any way, other than negatively for himself and his team. What would you do in his shoes?
Good for you. Perhaps Bradley Wiggins lacks your moral courage, perhaps he has had his i-phone impounded for the Giro, perhaps he has other things he must take into account as I mentioned earlier. Doesn't make him, or you, right or wrong does it?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
"Bernie", when Wiggins has come out and condemned someone personally, it has been when they have been *sanctioned*. So why not wait until some evidence is produced, some convictions are obtained, and *then* see what he says?
Odd that you use his condemnation of Di Luca as proof that he doesn't condemn people any more...Le Blaireau (1)0 -
As I have pointed out above, the Italian Marco Pinotti, an outspoken anti-doping pro cyclist has also been silent.
What is about about the Englishman Bradley Wiggins that makes "Bernie" want to single him out?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
mididoctors wrote:afx237vi wrote:I don't see Wiggo's silence as anything unusual in itself, but I do agree with mididoctors that the Twitter peloton in general is much quieter than normal. I can't find one rider who has even mentioned it. Compare that to when Pellizotti got done.
thank you... SSDD
I'm not impressed ... the silence is deafening
But how often has Wiggins or any rider slagged off or even commented on a rider who hasn't been properly caught? They only criticize those who have actually been busted.
Now some of you will shout - "That's the Omerta in full effect" - but it's not, the so called ‘omerta’ is largely no existent these days.. There are better reasons.
1. They aren't internet keyboard warriors - they're well know figures in the sport. If we say "Bruyneel and Armstrong are poisonous cheats and corrupt to their very core", nobody really gives a toss, because we're not important. If Wiggins says it, then he's going to get sued. And he'll have no more hard evidence than you or I, and he'll lose. And it won't change anything.
2. Clean or dirty, I imagine these riders have had plenty of false rumours and accusations thrown at them, so they’re reluctant to comment on the same in regard to other riders.
3. Clean riders are probably sick to death of talking about doping , they want to talk about the racing. There’s a certain subsection of the cycling media and fans that are really only interested in the doping and not the racing. The clean riders know that things are slowing getting better and don’t want doping talk to overshadow clean riders doing well and winning. They’d rather just get on with the racing and focus on that.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Like, say, when you're a professional internet poster, as opposed to a profesional rider, where the meaning of your existence, never mind your living, depends on going along with what everyone around you does.mididoctors wrote:easy have principles when you have little to lose..
I really worry for the future of some of these professionals if this really is as big as it seems - the professional forumites, I mean, like what would some of you do if LA et al got kicked out?0 -
DavMartinR wrote:I think the dilemma JV if he doe come out in support of what Landis is saying he is feeding DZ to the lions. And DZ saying hang on boss your going to give me the boot for doing something you did as well, but you keep your job? JV should be knocking on the door of the USA Federation to see if there is some sort of reduced ban for info given?
I also think JV missed a great opportunity to come clean the same time as Riis and Zabel did. That come back and bit him on the backside.
JV probably knows that DZ was on the special sauce. He knows that Millar was on the sauce. He can assume that CVV was on the sauce. Others as well, I'd expect. The question is what exactly is Garmin? Just a team? Or a force to help clean the sport?
He is in a tough position -- no doubt. But it is a position that he created. You're right he should have come clean long ago; so should some of his riders. For DZ, Millar and CVV is Garmin just a paycheck or is it something more? He decided to sign riders that may have had dubious histories. Fair enough, everyone wants to win, but if there is evidence that shows that DZ cheated in the past -- he should go.
Obviously, riders are not going to commit career suicide. I know that. But part of cleaning up the sport is being honest about the past and being honest about what is happening today. If JV was not honest about his own involvement -- why should DZ? Why should any rider? JV cannot have it both ways -- he cannot be the point man for clean cycling by refusing to deal with his past or his riders' past. Today is the consequence that position -- a clean team that has members that doped earlier and they are being called on it.
In his comments yesterday, JV did not say that DZ never doped -- he did say (or imply) that that was not the case today.
JV can intervene here in a way here that pushes this forward -- the quickest way of doing that is to say that there may be some truth to what Landis says. He doesn't have to throw DZ to the lions -- but he shouldn't let Landis be mauled by the lions as well.
What side is Vaughters on? It is not a simple question. He has one foot in the door, the other foot in the gutter.
I understand that I may be so blinded by what I want Garmin to be that I cannot see what Garmin really is. :shock:0 -
No, I was pointing out his 'out of character' silence on this occasion. That said I don't doubt that he is in a 'difficult' position, especially given that if he sticks to what he has said earlier he would be morally bound to refuse to ride with one of his own team-mates.DaveyL wrote:Odd that you use his condemnation of Di Luca as proof that he doesn't condemn people any more...0 -
Agreed.Bakunin wrote:JV can intervene here in a way here that pushes this forward -- the quickest way of doing that is to say that there may be some truth to what Landis says. He doesn't have to throw DZ to the lions -- but he shouldn't let Landis be mauled by the lions as well.0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
No, I was pointing out his 'out of character' silence on this occasion. That said I don't doubt that he is in a 'difficult' position, especially given that if he sticks to what he has said earlier he would be morally bound to refuse to ride with one of his own team-mates.DaveyL wrote:Odd that you use his condemnation of Di Luca as proof that he doesn't condemn people any more...
Have you missed my other points or are you going to ignore the fact Pinotti has remained silent for a second time?Le Blaireau (1)0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
No, I was pointing out his 'out of character' silence on this occasion. That said I don't doubt that he is in a 'difficult' position, especially given that if he sticks to what he has said earlier he would be morally bound to refuse to ride with one of his own team-mates.DaveyL wrote:Odd that you use his condemnation of Di Luca as proof that he doesn't condemn people any more...
It's not out of character - Di Luca tested positive in an official doping test. So Wiggins is just as prepared to comment as he always was.
Whether you like it or not, all we have *just now* are allegations.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
As those who know me would attest, I would speak my mind and damn the consequences.disgruntledgoat wrote:Wiggins old or new has no impact on who is invited to the Tour. He can't affect this issue in any way, other than negatively for himself and his team. What would you do in his shoes?
Bu who actually knows you? Have you ever used your real name or identified yourself?
And what do you do as a career? Would you speak out against some one else in the same industry if they had a finger pointed at them by a proven cheat?
I'm not saying that I think LA is clean or a supporter - I just think it's a bit rich for a person to say what they would do, when they are not in thier shoes.0 -
0
-
DaveyL wrote:BikingBernie wrote:
No, I was pointing out his 'out of character' silence on this occasion. That said I don't doubt that he is in a 'difficult' position, especially given that if he sticks to what he has said earlier he would be morally bound to refuse to ride with one of his own team-mates.DaveyL wrote:Odd that you use his condemnation of Di Luca as proof that he doesn't condemn people any more...
It's not out of character...
It hardly follows the principles he laid out here...
If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is involved in any way in a drugs ring or doping or working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France - as simple as that - they shouldn't even be given a racing licence until they can prove that they are, through stringent testing procedures, that they are not involved in any wrong doing - until then the ASO shouldn't have them in the Tour de France and the UCI should not have them in the sport.
...The riders have got to take a stand too as a group. If it almost means that we're sitting on the start line at the next race in a month's time saying, 'Look, we're not riding with this guy' and put him at the back of the field or not start the race if there's any suspicion on this guy - if that's what it's gonna take then that's what it's gonna take.
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/si ... script.asp0 -
Please quantify 1% doubt. As I reckon Wiggins is just talking off the top of his head there."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
It hardly follows the principles he laid out here...
If there's a 1% suspicion or doubt that a team is involved in any way in a drugs ring or doping or working with certain doctors, then they shouldn't be invited to the Tour de France - as simple as that - they shouldn't even be given a racing licence until they can prove that they are, through stringent testing procedures, that they are not involved in any wrong doing - until then the ASO shouldn't have them in the Tour de France and the UCI should not have them in the sport.
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/si ... script.asp
How is he going against his principles? I'm sure that if he was in charge of issuing the licences and invitations then he'd probably revoke them. But he's not.
Here's a question. When you've been driving on the motorway and you've seen a car go past at clearly over the speed limit, do you take a note of the number plate and report them to the police? If not, why not?Twitter: @RichN950 -
BikingBernie wrote:
whooossssshhhhhhhhhhh
perhaps he is saying something there?"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
A probability of 1 in 100?disgruntledgoat wrote:Please quantify 1% doubt. As I reckon Wiggins is just talking off the top of his head there.
He also say 'any suspicion'. In my book any means 'the smallest amount; any quantity this is not zero'.0 -
mididoctors wrote:whooossssshhhhhhhhhhh
perhaps he is saying something there?
Unlikely, that was posted on the 19th (morning), before all of this broke.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:mididoctors wrote:whooossssshhhhhhhhhhh
perhaps he is saying something there?
Unlikely, that was posted on the 19th (morning), before all of this broke.
"If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
A probability of 1 in 100?disgruntledgoat wrote:Please quantify 1% doubt. As I reckon Wiggins is just talking off the top of his head there.
He also say 'any suspicion'. In my book any means 'the smallest amount; any quantity this is not zero'.
ok.. suspicon from whom? Bradley? Me? His mum? What's the unit of measure of doubt? Because you may want to hold him to such a statement, but it's a nonsense statement and as I said above, he doesn't decide who gets to ride the Tour does he?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
OK, have it your way, the 'old' Wiggins in putting himself up as a hard-line champion of the anti-doping movement was just blowing hot air.disgruntledgoat wrote:ok.. suspicon from whom? Bradley? Me? His mum? What's the unit of measure of doubt? Because you may want to hold him to such a statement, but it's a nonsense statement and as I said above, he doesn't decide who gets to ride the Tour does he? 0 -
BikingBernie wrote:
OK, have it your way, the 'old' Wiggins in putting himself up as a hard-line champion of the anti-doping movement was just blowing hot air.disgruntledgoat wrote:ok.. suspicon from whom? Bradley? Me? His mum? What's the unit of measure of doubt? Because you may want to hold him to such a statement, but it's a nonsense statement and as I said above, he doesn't decide who gets to ride the Tour does he?
Well, I have no opinion on Wiggins either way really, just saying that he has no control over the situation, can add nothing constructive to it, can only hurt himself and his team by running his mouth off and, as such, I think you're holding him to impossible standards."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
BikingBernie wrote:OK, have it your way, the 'old' Wiggins in putting himself up as a hard-line champion of the anti-doping movement was just blowing hot air.
He wasn't putting himself up as a champion at all. He was asked questions and he gave honest answers. Nowadays, the journalists have more interesting things to ask him about.Twitter: @RichN950
