latest wiggins interview.
Comments
-
Wiggins has improved a fair amount through adaptation of training specificity, at the same time it appears that those that were miles ahead seem to have cleaned up their acts and consequently slowed.Insta: ATEnduranceCoaching
ABCC Cycling Coach0 -
plectrum wrote:
oh gosh Contadors excuse and trial was worse than OJs
Well, best that could have happened is he got away with it with the Steak fairy story, and the worst was the Blood Doping angle couldn't be investigated fully, bit of a win-win after he got nabbed really.
BTW, I'm no Wiggins fan particularly, but drawing comparisons with what he says compared to LA, without real context is daft to me... and the odd bit of swearing never hurt anyone, I remember hearing somebody swear once, and it didn't bother me then either.0 -
Perhaps but in 99 Armstrong was still relatively fresh faced as was his team, if in 7 years time Wiggins has won 7 TdF then I'll happily admit that something is a bit untoward.Rundfahrt wrote: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.
Wiggins is towards the end of his career and has had flourishing success on the track prior to the road emergence. He hasn't just changed one factor but multiple which is also more proof positive that it is not a simple on off switch such as doping.
I'm going to have to repeat a word for perhaps the 4th or 5th time 'CONTEXT' until you grasp this you'll keep repeating yourself.0 -
plectrum wrote:
Perhaps but in 99 Armstrong was still relatively fresh faced as was his team, if in 7 years time Wiggins has won 7 TdF then I'll happily admit that something is a bit untoward.Rundfahrt wrote: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.
Wiggins is towards the end of his career and has had flourishing success on the track prior to the road emergence. He hasn't just changed one factor but multiple which is also more proof positive that it is not a simple on off switch such as doping.
I'm going to have to repeat a word for perhaps the 4th or 5th time 'CONTEXT' until you grasp this you'll keep repeating yourself.
I'll repeat a few things for you:
Excuses
Hypocritical
I'll add another:
Spin (what you keep doing to not admit the St. Wiggins act you are putting on is exactly what you guys hated from Armstrong fans.
It's interesting to note what you are avoiding in my earlier response. I am not surprised. Now run along to bed, we wouldnt want the chip truck to not be on the corner on time!0 -
-
Rundfahrt wrote:plectrum wrote:
Perhaps but in 99 Armstrong was still relatively fresh faced as was his team, if in 7 years time Wiggins has won 7 TdF then I'll happily admit that something is a bit untoward.Rundfahrt wrote: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.
Wiggins is towards the end of his career and has had flourishing success on the track prior to the road emergence. He hasn't just changed one factor but multiple which is also more proof positive that it is not a simple on off switch such as doping.
I'm going to have to repeat a word for perhaps the 4th or 5th time 'CONTEXT' until you grasp this you'll keep repeating yourself.
I'll repeat a few things for you:
Excuses - what excuse?
Hypocritical - one rider doped so his motley crew of apologists were wrong, the other didnt so his crew are right. Glad to see you sit with the dumbasses
I'll add another:
Spin (what you keep doing to not admit the St. Wiggins act you are putting on is exactly what you guys hated from Armstrong fans. - i never said I hated it at all; actually back in 99 I didnt really have much opinion about doping at all. My personal opinion is that Armstrong had little choice as cycling was screwed beyond belief then and it really was join the drug party or never get laid!
It's interesting to note what you are avoiding in my earlier response. I am not surprised. Now run along to bed, we wouldnt want the chip truck to not be on the corner on time! - I still have no real idea what you are saying apart from trying desperately to draw a thread between two subjects that have little to know similarity0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:Spin (what you keep doing to not admit the St. Wiggins act you are putting on is exactly what you guys hated from Armstrong fans.
The word 'context' has just been typed enough times. You haven't addressed that once, well to be fair, you have, saying on a wriggle that you mean 'when LA was first in yellow, first a GC contender' as a time referenfce, BUT, you haven't mentioned a single quote reference pre-99.
This is all really simple, you are saying its the same Brad saying it as LA saying it, and other people are saying its not.
If you think Brad is dirty, then fine, say why (Ive got no problem for one hearing a good argument on that)... if you think LA was clean by the way, doubley-please give us the reasoning
...the reason I say this is that you might be able to provide some 'context'!! 0 -
Plectrum- I thought you had to go? I guess being the winner on a message board is more important then your job. You say one rider doped and the other didn't, yet shouldn't we wait 12 years before coming to that conclusion? Do you have all of the data and proof that will ever be available about Wiggins? Wow, look at that, now you have turned this into a discussion of whether Wiggins doped in order to get away from my very valid points. Talking about doping is a fine example of the excuses you are making. The two subjects have a lot of similarity, if they didn't you wouldn't be so stung by it as to resort to the things I have mentioned. Keep trying sparky.
Mfin- Nowhere did I say "when LA was first in yellow" or "first a GC contender" perhaps if you stopped making assumptions and stuck to what I said you make the connection. Of course you would have to stop being a blinkered, Wiggins fanboi to be able to do that. (oh, that was fun, perhaps that will be my argument for anything anyone posts pro wiggins! I should peruse the archives and just use the Armstrong comments from the past and change the name in order to make my rapier like attacks). Oh, by the way, nowhere have I said anything about whether Wiggins dopes or not, so cut the BS.0 -
Rundfahrt wrote:Mfin- Nowhere did I say "when LA was first in yellow" or "first a GC contender" perhaps if you stopped making assumptions and stuck to what I said you make the connection. Of course you would have to stop being a blinkered, Wiggins fanboi to be able to do that. (oh, that was fun, perhaps that will be my argument for anything anyone posts pro wiggins! I should peruse the archives and just use the Armstrong comments from the past and change the name in order to make my rapier like attacks). Oh, by the way, nowhere have I said anything about whether Wiggins dopes or not, so cut the BS.
Sorry, but the bit below sounded a bit like you did...Rundfahrt wrote: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.
If you believe Im a 'fanboi' of Wiggins or anyone for that matter then fair enough, I assure you I don't idolise anyone in cycling like that.
I also didn't say you referenced Wiggins being a doper, I asked what you thought, and that was the point in the 'context' comments... the question put to Wiggins was about doping, and that's what we're talking about here, (well some of us) ...the 'context' of his reply.0 -
mfin wrote:Rundfahrt wrote:Mfin- Nowhere did I say "when LA was first in yellow" or "first a GC contender" perhaps if you stopped making assumptions and stuck to what I said you make the connection. Of course you would have to stop being a blinkered, Wiggins fanboi to be able to do that. (oh, that was fun, perhaps that will be my argument for anything anyone posts pro wiggins! I should peruse the archives and just use the Armstrong comments from the past and change the name in order to make my rapier like attacks). Oh, by the way, nowhere have I said anything about whether Wiggins dopes or not, so cut the BS.
Sorry, but the bit below sounded a bit like you did...
Isn't that just jumping to conclusions to suit your argument? I meant couldn't anything sound "a bit" like anything else.Rundfahrt wrote: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.
If you believe Im a 'fanboi' of Wiggins or anyone for that matter then fair enough, I assure you I don't idolise anyone in cycling like that.
I also didn't say you referenced Wiggins being a doper, but that was the point in the 'context' comments... the question put to Wiggins was about doping, and that's what we're talking about here, (well some of us) ...the 'context' of his reply.
1) My use of fanboi and blinders is simply taking the piss. When people were ripping Armstrong for responding to questions like the one asked of Wiggins anyone who did not rip him was labeled as such.
The point is that whether I think Wiggins dopes or not has nothing to do with my opinion on the response to his comments, so it should not even be brought up, it is merely spin or trying to change the focus.
At this time I think there is as much suspicion about Wiggins as there was about Armstrong in his first few years. I also think both came along after a big drug bust and were heralded as being a shining light of a much cleaner sport.0 -
It's interesting to see the difference to his public performance's and Cadels back in 2009
Bit of national bias coming through. Pressure definitely building on Wiggins wonder if he will crack? Take care of the luxuries and the necessites will take care of themselves.0 -
The question is a massive insult to the whole SKY team from Brailsford down to the coach driver. The whole SKY philosophy is to be clean, everyone knows that so any journo is either dispaying his crass ignorance or is knowingly insulting the whole team.
If I was Brailsford I'd chin the tw@t.'I started with nothing and still have most of it left.'0 -
Alwaystoohot wrote:The question is a massive insult to the whole SKY team from Brailsford down to the coach driver. The whole SKY philosophy is to be clean, everyone knows that so any journo is either dispaying his crass ignorance or is knowingly insulting the whole team.
If I was Brailsford I'd chin the tw@t.
In the sport of cycling simply not testing positive is not good enough to prove you're clean. Fans and journalist can ask questions and speculate as much as they want. Wiggins just made himself look like an a$$ and highly suspect.0 -
Both Wiggins and Lance published their blood values in the 2009 Tour. Wiggins' caused no comment, Armostong's appear to be central to the current USAD investigation. Make of that what you will...0
-
Pressure is definitely getting to him, and why wouldn't it. It's a mad mad bubble of a race and he just let off a little steam is all!!
NapD already made a point I agree with which is that IMO many of his would be rivals are either laying off or have locked the door to the medicine cabinet.
Not everyone wants to hear some of his more choice words. Personally I couldn't give a monkeys. My only concern is the sh it storm he's now created and the wiggo baiting from journos hell now have to endure.0 -
In the sport of cycling simply not testing positive is not good enough to prove you're clean. Fans and journalist can ask questions and speculate as much as they want. Wiggins just made himself look like an a$$ and highly suspect
An ass, I can see how some people would think that, but how does his little hissy fit make him 'highly suspect'?
I'm loving all the mock indignation by the 12 year old virgin bed wetters on Twitter offended by the big bad cyclist swearing a bit.0 -
There certainly was some comment about Wiggins' blood values. For example,mm1 wrote:Both Wiggins and Lance published their blood values in the 2009 Tour. Wiggins' caused no comment, Armostong's appear to be central to the current USAD investigation. Make of that what you will...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gripper ... publishing
Armstrong's 2010 blood values also seem to be central to USADA's case and the UCI rated Wiggins' 2010 blood values as being more suspicious than Armstrong's. Make of that what you will...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-su ... -de-france
As to Wiggos' outburst, the swearing is pretty much an irrelevance but the rest of it does have a powerful whiff of self-justification about it.0 -
Alwaystoohot wrote:The question is a massive insult to the whole SKY team from Brailsford down to the coach driver. The whole SKY philosophy is to be clean, everyone knows that so any journo is either dispaying his crass ignorance or is knowingly insulting the whole team.
If I was Brailsford I'd chin the tw@t.
So you're saying there's nothing that Sky should perhaps address?
If you're going to talk the talk, you need to walk the walk.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Alwaystoohot wrote:The question is a massive insult to the whole SKY team from Brailsford down to the coach driver. The whole SKY philosophy is to be clean, everyone knows that so any journo is either dispaying his crass ignorance or is knowingly insulting the whole team.
If I was Brailsford I'd chin the tw@t.
+10 -
There certainly was some comment about Wiggins' blood values. For example,
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gripper ... publishing
So Landis claimed that his blood was as natural as Wiggo's? Apart from the synthetic testosterone that is...
As to Wiggos' outburst, the swearing is pretty much an irrelevance but the rest of it does have a powerful whiff of self-justification about it.[/quote]
Or maybe he's just under pressure and annoyed? My tourette's can get pretty severe at times, doesn't mean I'm up to anything. Perhaps Sky need an ettiquete and deportment coach.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Alwaystoohot wrote:The question is a massive insult to the whole SKY team from Brailsford down to the coach driver. The whole SKY philosophy is to be clean, everyone knows that so any journo is either dispaying his crass ignorance or is knowingly insulting the whole team.
If I was Brailsford I'd chin the tw@t.
So you're saying there's nothing that Sky should perhaps address?
If you're going to talk the talk, you need to walk the walk.
Some balance is needed here - they are walking the walk as much as any other team in the pro peloton. Given that releasing enough data to provide proof is also a key to beating the athelte it's never gong to happen. Moreso, there will always be people who question it as it's their only way of making themselves relevant on twitter (this has been a bit of a revelation to me since joining up...)
Frankly, the court of festina girl and Shane Stokes is also not one I'm too bothered about tbh. I genuinely wonder why those people watch cycling...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Usual Pro race over reaction to an off the cuff comment.
I say fair play and the question deserved the response.0 -
But Landis has openly admitted that he raced on Epo and blood doping, so was hardly likely to have had a natural blood profile. He also continues to deny that he directly took testosterone in 2006.mm1 wrote:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gripper-concerned-over-bio-passport-publishing
So Landis claimed that his blood was as natural as Wiggo's? Apart from the synthetic testosterone that is...0 -
TheYorkshireMan wrote:
There certainly was some comment about Wiggins' blood values. For example,mm1 wrote:Both Wiggins and Lance published their blood values in the 2009 Tour. Wiggins' caused no comment, Armostong's appear to be central to the current USAD investigation. Make of that what you will...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gripper ... publishing
Armstrong's 2010 blood values also seem to be central to USADA's case and the UCI rated Wiggins' 2010 blood values as being more suspicious than Armstrong's. Make of that what you will...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-su ... -de-france
As to Wiggos' outburst, the swearing is pretty much an irrelevance but the rest of it does have a powerful whiff of self-justification about it.
On Wiggins blood values, the comment from Anne Gripper, Former UCI anti-doping person, seems to be 'dont release them because you'll have armchair critics speculating about them without any scientific validity, eg Landis saying it looks like his. This point seems to have been proven. Hmm.0 -
I love Wiggo interviews, the guys a legend.
His interviews are up there with Mexican drug lord beheading videos.0 -
TheYorkshireMan wrote:
There certainly was some comment about Wiggins' blood values. For example,mm1 wrote:Both Wiggins and Lance published their blood values in the 2009 Tour. Wiggins' caused no comment, Armostong's appear to be central to the current USAD investigation. Make of that what you will...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/gripper ... publishing
Armstrong's 2010 blood values also seem to be central to USADA's case and the UCI rated Wiggins' 2010 blood values as being more suspicious than Armstrong's. Make of that what you will...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ucis-su ... -de-france
As to Wiggos' outburst, the swearing is pretty much an irrelevance but the rest of it does have a powerful whiff of self-justification about it.
Jermey Hunt is a 7 and Mathew Lloyd is an 8. Armstrong is a 4. I thought that list was later withdrawn as a bit nonsensical? Obviously that wasnt the technical explanation.0 -
On Wiggins blood values, the comment from Anne Gripper, Former UCI anti-doping person, seems to be 'dont release them because you'll have armchair critics speculating about them without any scientific validity, eg Landis saying it looks like his. This point seems to have been proven. Hmm.
Don't you know the rules? You aren't actually supposed to read the links, just assume to content on them adds credence to the posters assertions.0 -
The Mad Rapper wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Look, it's cycling.
Big performance = doping chat.
Especially in the Tour.
Everyone in sky knows that. Wiggins too.
Keep not taking drugs and doing well, and keep their heads in front of the cameras. That's all they can be reasonably expected to do.
Flipping out infront of a camera helps no-one - not even Wiggins.
I understand his frustration though. He's trying to say 'This is a new era', but everyone just wants to talk about the past.
It's not a new era though is it?
There are people who are involved in the Armstrong thing who are still riding. Bottle, Zabriskie, Hincape etc, let alone other riders who have shady pasts.
We're heading that way, but we're not there yet.
Not by a long shot.0
