latest wiggins interview.
Comments
-
Some people love being outraged don't they. What is wrong with someone unloading a bit on journos/critics? Would you really prefer the passionless homogenised responses we get from most people in the public eye. Wiggins has done all he can to show he's clean so why should he not tell them to fck right off? Jeez, its refreshing that someone actually dishes out some stick now and again. Isn't it? What is it you'd prefer because I don't actually know what you're after.
Edit: Just read full quote. Bit strong but still of the same opinion.0 -
RichN95 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:It's interesting to see all of the defense of Wiggins, excuses and anger...especially considering how many ripped Americans for doing the same things when it can't to Armstrong during his days in yellow.
When someone writes a book called BW Confidential or From Wiggins to Cav, then come back to us.
Your argument is like saying someone who thinks Sex in the City 2 is a crap film and another who thinks The Godfather Part 2 is a crap film are the same, because they're both films, eh.
I knew you would only read what you want to see in my post instead of what I actually said. Actually you just proved my point very well.0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:RichN95 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:It's interesting to see all of the defense of Wiggins, excuses and anger...especially considering how many ripped Americans for doing the same things when it can't to Armstrong during his days in yellow.
When someone writes a book called BW Confidential or From Wiggins to Cav, then come back to us.
Your argument is like saying someone who thinks Sex in the City 2 is a crap film and another who thinks The Godfather Part 2 is a crap film are the same, because they're both films, eh.
I knew you would only read what you want to see in my post instead of what I actually said. Actually you just proved my point very well.
Unfortunately, what you said made no sense so I had to extrapolate.
"especially considering how many ripped Americans for doing the same things when it can't to Armstrong during his days in yellow"
What does "when it can't to Armstrong during his days in yellow" mean?0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:RichN95 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:It's interesting to see all of the defense of Wiggins, excuses and anger...especially considering how many ripped Americans for doing the same things when it can't to Armstrong during his days in yellow.
When someone writes a book called BW Confidential or From Wiggins to Cav, then come back to us.
Your argument is like saying someone who thinks Sex in the City 2 is a crap film and another who thinks The Godfather Part 2 is a crap film are the same, because they're both films, eh.
I knew you would only read what you want to see in my post instead of what I actually said. Actually you just proved my point very well.
I read it just fine. Your argument is that defenders of Armstrong, in the face of overwhelming evidence, should be held equivalent to defenders of Wiggins, in the face of bugger all evidence.Twitter: @RichN950 -
plectrum wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:RichN95 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:It's interesting to see all of the defense of Wiggins, excuses and anger...especially considering how many ripped Americans for doing the same things when it can't to Armstrong during his days in yellow.
When someone writes a book called BW Confidential or From Wiggins to Cav, then come back to us.
Your argument is like saying someone who thinks Sex in the City 2 is a crap film and another who thinks The Godfather Part 2 is a crap film are the same, because they're both films, eh.
I knew you would only read what you want to see in my post instead of what I actually said. Actually you just proved my point very well.
Unfortunately, what you said made no sense so I had to extrapolate.
"especially considering how many ripped Americans for doing the same things when it can't to Armstrong during his days in yellow"
What does "when it can't to Armstrong during his days in yellow" mean?
Oops, didn't notice the typing/auto correct error. That should say "when it came to Armstrong during his days in yellow." I'll go back and edit.0 -
Heavymental wrote:Some people love being outraged don't they. My god, he said the S word... hardly even considered a swear word these days. Also, what is wrong with someone unloading a bit on journos/critics? Would you really prefer the passionless homogenised responses we get from most people in the public eye. Wiggins has done all he can to show he's clean so why should he not tell them to fck right off? Jeez, its refreshing that someone actually dishes out some stick now and again. Isn't it? What is it you'd prefer because I don't actually know what you're after.
To who? Most of the journos in the press room won't have a clue about what he's done or said in the past and neither will the millions of people who only follow cycling during the Tour. All they saw was some guy go on a foul-mouthed rant that makes Joey Barton look classy in comparison.0 -
RichN95 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:RichN95 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:It's interesting to see all of the defense of Wiggins, excuses and anger...especially considering how many ripped Americans for doing the same things when it can't to Armstrong during his days in yellow.
When someone writes a book called BW Confidential or From Wiggins to Cav, then come back to us.
Your argument is like saying someone who thinks Sex in the City 2 is a crap film and another who thinks The Godfather Part 2 is a crap film are the same, because they're both films, eh.
I knew you would only read what you want to see in my post instead of what I actually said. Actually you just proved my point very well.
I read it just fine. Your argument is that defenders of Armstrong, in the face of overwhelming evidence, should be held equivalent to defenders of Wiggins, in the face of bugger all evidence.
If that's what you got out of it then you did read what you wanted to read and not what I posted. :roll:0 -
I still don't understand what you mean sorry.
Do you mean its weird that we all ripped the Armstrong blinkered fans and continue to do so today? If that is the case then I disagree, Armstrong is a cheat, he was a brilliant cyclist but he was on so much dope, it is unbelievable that there is anyone on the planet that thinks differently.0 -
afx237vi wrote:Heavymental wrote:Some people love being outraged don't they. My god, he said the S word... hardly even considered a swear word these days. Also, what is wrong with someone unloading a bit on journos/critics? Would you really prefer the passionless homogenised responses we get from most people in the public eye. Wiggins has done all he can to show he's clean so why should he not tell them to fck right off? Jeez, its refreshing that someone actually dishes out some stick now and again. Isn't it? What is it you'd prefer because I don't actually know what you're after.
To who? Most of the journos in the press room won't have a clue about what he's done or said in the past and neither will the millions of people who only follow cycling during the Tour. All they saw was some guy go on a foul-mouthed rant that makes Joey Barton look classy in comparison.
Good .... so the lazy journo should go and do some research before entering a press room. The journo will say I'm asking the question because the readers are interested but if the journo did the research and published some correct factually supported views on Wiggins then maybe the public wouldn't need to ask the question about dope.0 -
plectrum wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:It's interesting to see all of the defense of Wiggins, excuses and anger...especially considering how many ripped Americans for doing the same things when it can't to Armstrong during his days in yellow.
What are you talking about .... Armstrong failed drug tests, rode in the dirtiest years in cycling and didn't keep up with the opposition like Wiggins is doing with Evans but totally blew them apart. Armstrong was an utter cheat who treated everyone with utter disdain, I'd be mightily pissed off if people started to compare me with Armstrong, in that way.
So true. Wiggo so far has put in a good TT (which is his specialism) and now rode a careful race and stuck on the back wheel of Froome and Cuddles up in the mountains. He's harldy thrown down his bandana and taken up off the road like Pantani or looked back into the face of his main rival on the Alpe and left him standing like Armstrong did.0 -
plectrum wrote:I still don't understand what you mean sorry.
Do you mean its weird that we all ripped the Armstrong blinkered fans and continue to do so today? If that is the case then I disagree, Armstrong is a cheat, he was a brilliant cyclist but he was on so much dope, it is unbelievable that there is anyone on the planet that thinks differently.
No, I just find it amusing that Wiggins is saying pretty much what Armstrong said while he was in yellow during his day and the people defending Wiggins, making excuses for him and being angry at people asking him such questions are the same who ripped Armstrong back in the day. Hypocritical.
Not sure where you guys are seeing anything about today in my comment, perhaps still blinded by tears for the "British Number One."
P.S. can I use "blinkered fans" for the people who always defend Wiggins?0 -
plectrum wrote:afx237vi wrote:Heavymental wrote:Some people love being outraged don't they. My god, he said the S word... hardly even considered a swear word these days. Also, what is wrong with someone unloading a bit on journos/critics? Would you really prefer the passionless homogenised responses we get from most people in the public eye. Wiggins has done all he can to show he's clean so why should he not tell them to fck right off? Jeez, its refreshing that someone actually dishes out some stick now and again. Isn't it? What is it you'd prefer because I don't actually know what you're after.
To who? Most of the journos in the press room won't have a clue about what he's done or said in the past and neither will the millions of people who only follow cycling during the Tour. All they saw was some guy go on a foul-mouthed rant that makes Joey Barton look classy in comparison.
Good .... so the lazy journo should go and do some research before entering a press room. The journo will say I'm asking the question because the readers are interested but if the journo did the research and published some correct factually supported views on Wiggins then maybe the public wouldn't need to ask the question about dope.
That's the Tour, though, and I'm sure Wiggins knows it. I dislike media robots as much as the next guy, but it would have been easier for him just to reel off the "I'm committed to riding clean" stuff and move on the next question. This just draws attention to the fact he gets riled by doping questions. What do you reckon they'll be asking about tomorrow?0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:
If that's what you got out of it then you did read what you wanted to read and not what I posted. :roll:
Maybe you should reiterate and fill out your point then so we can fully understand it.
This is the bit where Rundfart says 'if you don't know, I can't help you' as a diversionTwitter: @RichN950 -
Rundfahrt wrote:plectrum wrote:I still don't understand what you mean sorry.
Do you mean its weird that we all ripped the Armstrong blinkered fans and continue to do so today? If that is the case then I disagree, Armstrong is a cheat, he was a brilliant cyclist but he was on so much dope, it is unbelievable that there is anyone on the planet that thinks differently.
No, I just find it amusing that Wiggins is saying pretty much what Armstrong said while he was in yellow during his day and the people defending Wiggins, making excuses for him and being angry at people asking him such questions are the same who ripped Armstrong back in the day. Hypocritical.
Not sure where you guys are seeing anything about today in my comment, perhaps still blinded by tears for the "British Number One."
P.S. can I use "blinkered fans" for the people who always defend Wiggins?
Oh sorry I did understand exactly what you said and I stand by my initial response in that it is total garbage. Wiggins has been a staunch anti-dope cyclist for ages. I found an article back in 07 when his team pulled out after Christian Moreni doped:
Bradley Wiggins after Christian Moreni failed a dope test in TdF and his team dropped out "The people who are still doping are mainly the older generation and the riders who hang around with them. The sooner they are gone the better." http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/ju ... rdefrance1
His attitude in general has 'zero' in common with Armstrong and his performances neither. He's working really hard, he publicly states that in comparison to back when he was winning Olympics his work ethic now makes then seem like laziness. The peleton is so much cleaner than 5-10 yrs ago and the chief protaganists of dope cycling such as Contador or Armstrong aren't competing and those who may have doped in the past such as Schlecks I think are too shit scared to do it now.0 -
afx237vi wrote:plectrum wrote:afx237vi wrote:Heavymental wrote:Some people love being outraged don't they. My god, he said the S word... hardly even considered a swear word these days. Also, what is wrong with someone unloading a bit on journos/critics? Would you really prefer the passionless homogenised responses we get from most people in the public eye. Wiggins has done all he can to show he's clean so why should he not tell them to fck right off? Jeez, its refreshing that someone actually dishes out some stick now and again. Isn't it? What is it you'd prefer because I don't actually know what you're after.
To who? Most of the journos in the press room won't have a clue about what he's done or said in the past and neither will the millions of people who only follow cycling during the Tour. All they saw was some guy go on a foul-mouthed rant that makes Joey Barton look classy in comparison.
Good .... so the lazy journo should go and do some research before entering a press room. The journo will say I'm asking the question because the readers are interested but if the journo did the research and published some correct factually supported views on Wiggins then maybe the public wouldn't need to ask the question about dope.
That's the Tour, though, and I'm sure Wiggins knows it. I dislike media robots as much as the next guy, but it would have been easier for him just to reel off the "I'm committed to riding clean" stuff and move on the next question. This just draws attention to the fact he gets riled by doping questions. What do you reckon they'll be asking about tomorrow?
Many ways to skin a cat, and heh he has got just as many fans who think its great to speak ones mind.0 -
RichN95 wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:
If that's what you got out of it then you did read what you wanted to read and not what I posted. :roll:
Maybe you should reiterate and fill out your point then so we can fully understand it.
This is the bit where Rundfart says 'if you don't know, I can't help you' as a diversion
The only diversion I see is the one that you are so desperately trying to take this topic on. It's quite pathetic really. Heck, I have even explained myself to make it simp,e for the likes of and you still claim to have no clue.
I am starting to worry that all of that running around with a little curved stick in a kilt has affected your intelligence.0 -
plectrum wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:plectrum wrote:I still don't understand what you mean sorry.
Do you mean its weird that we all ripped the Armstrong blinkered fans and continue to do so today? If that is the case then I disagree, Armstrong is a cheat, he was a brilliant cyclist but he was on so much dope, it is unbelievable that there is anyone on the planet that thinks differently.
No, I just find it amusing that Wiggins is saying pretty much what Armstrong said while he was in yellow during his day and the people defending Wiggins, making excuses for him and being angry at people asking him such questions are the same who ripped Armstrong back in the day. Hypocritical.
Not sure where you guys are seeing anything about today in my comment, perhaps still blinded by tears for the "British Number One."
P.S. can I use "blinkered fans" for the people who always defend Wiggins?
Oh sorry I did understand exactly what you said and I stand by my initial response in that it is total garbage. Wiggins has been a staunch anti-dope cyclist for ages. I found an article back in 07 when his team pulled out after Christian Moreni doped:
Bradley Wiggins after Christian Moreni failed a dope test in TdF and his team dropped out "The people who are still doping are mainly the older generation and the riders who hang around with them. The sooner they are gone the better." http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2007/ju ... rdefrance1
His attitude in general has 'zero' in common with Armstrong and his performances neither. He's working really hard, he publicly states that in comparison to back when he was winning Olympics his work ethic now makes then seem like laziness. The peloton is so much cleaner than 5-10 yrs ago and the chief protaganists of dope cycling such as Contador or Armstrong aren't competing and those who may have doped in the past such as Schlecks I think are too shoot scared to do it now.
You are trying to hard to defend Wiggins and adding things that have nothing to do with my comment. My comment has nothing to do with anyone's previous stance, it has to do with Wiggins tirade and the hypocritical response from many.
Is this the appropriate time to call you a Wiggins fanboi and a blinkered fan of his? 0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:plectrum wrote:I still don't understand what you mean sorry.
Do you mean its weird that we all ripped the Armstrong blinkered fans and continue to do so today? If that is the case then I disagree, Armstrong is a cheat, he was a brilliant cyclist but he was on so much dope, it is unbelievable that there is anyone on the planet that thinks differently.
No, I just find it amusing that Wiggins is saying pretty much what Armstrong said while he was in yellow during his day and the people defending Wiggins, making excuses for him and being angry at people asking him such questions are the same who ripped Armstrong back in the day. Hypocritical.
Not sure where you guys are seeing anything about today in my comment, perhaps still blinded by tears for the "British Number One."
P.S. can I use "blinkered fans" for the people who always defend Wiggins?
You're right, it does 'sound' like its in the same vein, what Wiggins is saying. But, if 2 people say the similar thing and one is a doper and one is not, then its comes from a completely different place, you can agree with that priniciple?
So, then, it just comes down to whether you think one, the other, both or neither are/were doped.
Its the context in which its being said.
As for the swearing etc, I couldn't care less myself, at least Wiggins is a character, if it comes down to Sports Personality of the Year conversations/considerations, at least he's got one, some people seem to interpret that sportsmen should be Daily Mail style ambassadors for sport, booooooooring, who would you rather have a laugh with, someone like Wiggins, or someone dull like Damon Hill or Sally Gunnell.0 -
Rundfahrt
Too late, work tomorrow. Armstrong was a filthy doping cheat, who'd screw his grandmother to get up Alp d'Huez first, his fans (who live under the illusion he rode clean as opposed to those who know he was a walking pharmacy but still loved the way he ripped it up) are utterly deluded and generally have the IQ of a newt.
Wiggins is a dedicated British cyclist who is so clearly clean it is positively ridiculous to have discussions about the alternative. Nothing in his entire career leads me to sensibly believe he is or has ever doped.
I'm open minded and if you return with some factual evidence then I'm more than happy to look at it in an open manner, until that time if all you have is groundless opinion then I'm more than content to stick to mine.0 -
mfin wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:plectrum wrote:I still don't understand what you mean sorry.
Do you mean its weird that we all ripped the Armstrong blinkered fans and continue to do so today? If that is the case then I disagree, Armstrong is a cheat, he was a brilliant cyclist but he was on so much dope, it is unbelievable that there is anyone on the planet that thinks differently.
No, I just find it amusing that Wiggins is saying pretty much what Armstrong said while he was in yellow during his day and the people defending Wiggins, making excuses for him and being angry at people asking him such questions are the same who ripped Armstrong back in the day. Hypocritical.
Not sure where you guys are seeing anything about today in my comment, perhaps still blinded by tears for the "British Number One."
P.S. can I use "blinkered fans" for the people who always defend Wiggins?
You're right, it does 'sound' like its in the same vein, what Wiggins is saying. But, if 2 people say the similar thing and one is a doper and one is not, then its comes from a completely different place, you can agree with that priniciple?
So, then, it just comes down to whether you think one, the other, both or neither are/were doped.
Its the context in which its being said.
As for the swearing etc, I couldn't care less myself, at least Wiggins is a character, if it comes down to Sports Personality of the Year conversations/considerations, at least he's got one, some people seem to interpret that sportsmen should be Daily Mail style ambassadors for sport, booooooooring, who would you rather have a laugh with, someone like Wiggins, or someone dull like Damon Hill or Sally Gunnell.
But at the time Armstrong was saying the same thing he was merely a rider who had become a GC man and was in yellow. You guys defending Wiggins keep trying to change my comment to read like I was talking about Armatrong today or in the last few years, despite my specific time reference. In other words, you guys are making my point for me.0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:mfin wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:plectrum wrote:I still don't understand what you mean sorry.
Do you mean its weird that we all ripped the Armstrong blinkered fans and continue to do so today? If that is the case then I disagree, Armstrong is a cheat, he was a brilliant cyclist but he was on so much dope, it is unbelievable that there is anyone on the planet that thinks differently.
No, I just find it amusing that Wiggins is saying pretty much what Armstrong said while he was in yellow during his day and the people defending Wiggins, making excuses for him and being angry at people asking him such questions are the same who ripped Armstrong back in the day. Hypocritical.
Not sure where you guys are seeing anything about today in my comment, perhaps still blinded by tears for the "British Number One."
P.S. can I use "blinkered fans" for the people who always defend Wiggins?
You're right, it does 'sound' like its in the same vein, what Wiggins is saying. But, if 2 people say the similar thing and one is a doper and one is not, then its comes from a completely different place, you can agree with that priniciple?
So, then, it just comes down to whether you think one, the other, both or neither are/were doped.
Its the context in which its being said.
As for the swearing etc, I couldn't care less myself, at least Wiggins is a character, if it comes down to Sports Personality of the Year conversations/considerations, at least he's got one, some people seem to interpret that sportsmen should be Daily Mail style ambassadors for sport, booooooooring, who would you rather have a laugh with, someone like Wiggins, or someone dull like Damon Hill or Sally Gunnell.
But at the time Armstrong was saying the same thing he was merely a rider who had become a GC man and was in yellow. You guys defending Wiggins keep trying to change my comment to read like I was talking about Armatrong today or in the last few years, despite my specific time reference. In other words, you guys are making my point for me.
No we're not, you're making your point perfectly clear on your own, we get you.
(and if you want to post similar quotes from LA pre-99 then go ahead)0 -
It simple. It all just psyches him up nicely for tomorrow's effort.
He's using anger as motivation and as a defense against the pressure that comes ahead of one of the most important TTs of his career.0 -
plectrum wrote:Rundfahrt
Too late, work tomorrow. Armstrong was a filthy doping cheat, who'd screw his grandmother to get up Alp d'Huez first, his fans (who live under the illusion he rode clean as opposed to those who know he was a walking pharmacy but still loved the way he ripped it up) are utterly deluded and generally have the IQ of a newt.
Wiggins is a dedicated British cyclist who is so clearly clean it is positively ridiculous to have discussions about the alternative. Nothing in his entire career leads me to sensibly believe he is or has ever doped.
I'm open minded and if you return with some factual evidence then I'm more than happy to look at it in an open manner, until that time if all you have is groundless opinion then I'm more than content to stick to mine.
You crack me up. You have no intelligent way to refute my point so you go for the personal attack on Armstrong and his fans, then you talk up Wiggins to mythical status and finally go after me with "you have nothing."
Hold on a minute...you just did exactly what Armstrong fans used to do in the face of criticism for their boy!
Once again you provided an excellent example of my point.0 -
mfin wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:mfin wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:plectrum wrote:I still don't understand what you mean sorry.
Do you mean its weird that we all ripped the Armstrong blinkered fans and continue to do so today? If that is the case then I disagree, Armstrong is a cheat, he was a brilliant cyclist but he was on so much dope, it is unbelievable that there is anyone on the planet that thinks differently.
No, I just find it amusing that Wiggins is saying pretty much what Armstrong said while he was in yellow during his day and the people defending Wiggins, making excuses for him and being angry at people asking him such questions are the same who ripped Armstrong back in the day. Hypocritical.
Not sure where you guys are seeing anything about today in my comment, perhaps still blinded by tears for the "British Number One."
P.S. can I use "blinkered fans" for the people who always defend Wiggins?
You're right, it does 'sound' like its in the same vein, what Wiggins is saying. But, if 2 people say the similar thing and one is a doper and one is not, then its comes from a completely different place, you can agree with that priniciple?
So, then, it just comes down to whether you think one, the other, both or neither are/were doped.
Its the context in which its being said.
As for the swearing etc, I couldn't care less myself, at least Wiggins is a character, if it comes down to Sports Personality of the Year conversations/considerations, at least he's got one, some people seem to interpret that sportsmen should be Daily Mail style ambassadors for sport, booooooooring, who would you rather have a laugh with, someone like Wiggins, or someone dull like Damon Hill or Sally Gunnell.
But at the time Armstrong was saying the same thing he was merely a rider who had become a GC man and was in yellow. You guys defending Wiggins keep trying to change my comment to read like I was talking about Armatrong today or in the last few years, despite my specific time reference. In other words, you guys are making my point for me.
No we're not, you're making your point perfectly clear on your own, we get you.
(and if you want to post similar quotes from LA pre-99 then go ahead)
If that's the case then you guys are doing exactly what I said. Thanks for being man enough to admit it.0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:mfin wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:mfin wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:plectrum wrote:I still don't understand what you mean sorry.
Do you mean its weird that we all ripped the Armstrong blinkered fans and continue to do so today? If that is the case then I disagree, Armstrong is a cheat, he was a brilliant cyclist but he was on so much dope, it is unbelievable that there is anyone on the planet that thinks differently.
No, I just find it amusing that Wiggins is saying pretty much what Armstrong said while he was in yellow during his day and the people defending Wiggins, making excuses for him and being angry at people asking him such questions are the same who ripped Armstrong back in the day. Hypocritical.
Not sure where you guys are seeing anything about today in my comment, perhaps still blinded by tears for the "British Number One."
P.S. can I use "blinkered fans" for the people who always defend Wiggins?
You're right, it does 'sound' like its in the same vein, what Wiggins is saying. But, if 2 people say the similar thing and one is a doper and one is not, then its comes from a completely different place, you can agree with that priniciple?
So, then, it just comes down to whether you think one, the other, both or neither are/were doped.
Its the context in which its being said.
As for the swearing etc, I couldn't care less myself, at least Wiggins is a character, if it comes down to Sports Personality of the Year conversations/considerations, at least he's got one, some people seem to interpret that sportsmen should be Daily Mail style ambassadors for sport, booooooooring, who would you rather have a laugh with, someone like Wiggins, or someone dull like Damon Hill or Sally Gunnell.
But at the time Armstrong was saying the same thing he was merely a rider who had become a GC man and was in yellow. You guys defending Wiggins keep trying to change my comment to read like I was talking about Armatrong today or in the last few years, despite my specific time reference. In other words, you guys are making my point for me.
No we're not, you're making your point perfectly clear on your own, we get you.
(and if you want to post similar quotes from LA pre-99 then go ahead)
If that's the case then you guys are doing exactly what I said. Thanks for being man enough to admit it.
No problem
...can I suggest you don't quote any of your posts on this topic in your application to CleverClub™ 0 -
Rundfahrt
No, I like Armstrong, he is a total machine but he was a doping cheat and a liar and it was clear both at the time and more so now. Wiggins is totally different as are the times in which we cycle. We haven't had a proper bust for a good while now; Contador was the last real high profile and even that was shrouded in BS.
Cycling is far cleaner now than at any point in its history; Wiggins is clearly cycling clean and they as a team have all the scientific data and blood passport data to back this up. Armstrong doesn't and even during his tour come back in 09 his blood data looked damn freaky!
So I really have no idea what you are saying; if Armstrong said something similar to Wiggins right here right now then fine but Wiggins has said so many other things that are irrefutably anti doping, something which Armstrong has never said.
You are free to believe what you wish.0 -
plectrum wrote:No, I like Armstrong, he is a total machine but he was a doping cheat and a liar and it was clear both at the time and more so now. Wiggins is totally different as are the times in which we cycle. We haven't had a proper bust for a good while now; Contador was the last real high profile and even that was shrouded in BS.
- BS remarkably standing for both BullSh!t and Beef Steak0 -
oh gosh Contadors excuse and trial was worse than OJs 0
-
It's funny how quick the lads are to resort to insults when they have nothing of intelligence and value to respond with in a topic. Oh, wait my comments are not flattering to Wiggins, he who must be defended at all costs!
Plectrum, I thought it was too late for you. LOL. It's interesting to see how your comments could have been posted in 1999 in defense of Armstrong. Although you and your mates here are blinkered Wiggins fanbois, or is it blinkered British rider fanbois? Golly, gee wiz, I am such a naughty lad.
Keep up the comedy lads!0
