latest wiggins interview.

disgruntledgoat

I was thinking about this on my (extremely soggy) ride in.

Now, I wasn't reading and posting on cycling forums in 1999, but I don't recall Armstrong facing a level of suspicion, baseless or otherwise, whilst he was riding the Tour. That came later with the bag of medical waste and Emma O'Reilly etc.

Wiggins has to put up with a bunch of anonymous twitter users sniping at him based on nothing, which I imagine is not so bad (just ignore them), but when that becomes the story in a press pack who must know what Sky's ethos is and the BC track programme it grew out of, that must get to be incredibly annoying. Even more so as Britain's first genuine GC hope in at least 25 years.

If all it takes for people to raise eyebrows is to lead the Tour, then why bother watching at all? I can understand scepticism, but cynicism just seems pointless. There was somebody up the thread questioning Gilbert because he's not winning monuments for fun this year, for chuff's sake.

I'm not even paricularly a fan of Wiggins, but what else could he say other than a meaninless platitude or a tirade? Roll up his sleeve and offer them blood right there? It's like somebody said, once the self appointed sages have decided you're suspicious then everything you do simply confirms their belief regardless.

le_patron

When Cadel flips out out he's a weirdo, losing the plot and to be laughed at. When Wiggins does he's letting off steam and preparing himself cleverly for the TT.
When Armstrong chooses to divert the question to focus on the effort and sacrifice of the the athletes, he is pilloried. When Wiggins does it he is excused for saying what he thinks in the heat of the moment and making a good point.
When Armstrong says that his performances were improved by being the most dedicated in training, everyine coughs BS, but with Wiggins it is a sign of dedication and preparation (if you can use that word innocently any more). The list goes on, but essentially most people of the same nationality will tend to put a more positive slant on the same facts. And others are getting a sense of déjà vu here and asking the obvious questions.

Personally I don't think he 's been star-trekking, but I also think all the questions are valid and should be expected and dealt with. Admittedly I have no idea what level of sacrifice is required to get to where Wiggins is right now and maybe it would irk me if people assumed I took a short-cut through the pharmacy, but I would expect the question and so should Wiggins, Brailsford and Sky.

disgruntledgoat

le patron wrote:

Personally I don't think he 's been star-trekking, but I also think all the questions are valid and should be expected and dealt with. Admittedly I have no idea what level of sacrifice is required to get to where Wiggins is right now and maybe it would irk me if people assumed I took a short-cut through the pharmacy, but I would expect the question and so should Wiggins, Brailsford and Sky.

Let's assume you're right and he gives a polished, Lance-esque answer to the question involving the words "I'm clean" or "I have never doped"

What good would that do? It wouldn' change anyone's opinion. Not that a bizarre rant does either, but I did find myself chuckling, which is quite rare when reading about a TDF press conference.

brettjmcc

NapoleonD wrote:

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.

+1 Agree with you Nap. Also, no one accross this thread seems to have acknowledged or mentioned the trnasfer of the trainign and management techniques that Brailsford brought accross to Sky from BC.

This has been commented on lots in other places how Sky now have training programmes fro their riders and are hugely data driven, something other teams have not done so much in the past (so I believe); where riders were left to train by themselves. Does this not make a massive potenital difference? I mean ES were talking about how Lemond would not stay on the diet and that he was always kgs over his target in the closed season. maybe this is part of the marginal gains process.

MrTapir

le patron wrote:

When Cadel flips out out he's a weirdo, losing the plot and to be laughed at. When Wiggins does he's letting off steam and preparing himself cleverly for the TT.
When Armstrong chooses to divert the question to focus on the effort and sacrifice of the the athletes, he is pilloried. When Wiggins does it he is excused for saying what he thinks in the heat of the moment and making a good point.
When Armstrong says that his performances were improved by being the most dedicated in training, everyine coughs BS, but with Wiggins it is a sign of dedication and preparation (if you can use that word innocently any more). The list goes on, but essentially most people of the same nationality will tend to put a more positive slant on the same facts. And others are getting a sense of déjà vu here and asking the obvious questions.

Personally I don't think he 's been star-trekking, but I also think all the questions are valid and should be expected and dealt with. Admittedly I have no idea what level of sacrifice is required to get to where Wiggins is right now and maybe it would irk me if people assumed I took a short-cut through the pharmacy, but I would expect the question and so should Wiggins, Brailsford and Sky.

So what evidence is there to link Wiggins to having doped?

iainf72

I reckon there is a way he could've dealt with it differently. He could have said "oh, the UK Postal thing....[insert lame royal mail joke" and then talked about how yes, he can see how it looks with the Sky guys on the front but that's what works for him, point out Liquigas do it too, point out the wattages are lower and people are free to look at them.

Still, at least Chris Carmichael approved of what he said!

TMR

Rick Chasey wrote:

The Mad Rapper wrote:

It's not a new era though is it?

Perhaps not, but my interpretation of what he's saying is that they are trying to make it a new era. It's obviously not going to happen over night.

TMR

iainf72 wrote:

Still, at least Chris Carmichael approved of what he said!

I've noticed a few choice comments from you now Iain. Getting the tar and brush ready?

iainf72

The Mad Rapper wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Still, at least Chris Carmichael approved of what he said!

I've noticed a few choice comments from you now Iain. Getting the tar and brush ready?

Only for people who think what Wiggins said has any kind of value.

rdt

RichN95 wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Rundfahrt wrote:

I am starting to worry that all of that running around with a little curved stick in a kilt has affected your intelligence.

A kilt? Why would I be wearing a kilt?

I still want to know why I'd be wearing a kilt, O Intelligent One.

A slip like that's a classic Turing Test failure. There's to be no Loebner Prize for the R-fahrt chatbot.

mfin

le patron wrote:

When Armstrong chooses to divert the question to focus on the effort and sacrifice of the the athletes, he is pilloried. When Wiggins does it he is excused for saying what he thinks in the heat of the moment and making a good point.
When Armstrong says that his performances were improved by being the most dedicated in training, everyine coughs BS, but with Wiggins it is a sign of dedication and preparation (if you can use that word innocently any more).

When Armstrong shoots off up the mountain, leaving every other rider for dead then he's an inspiration.
When Wiggins shoots off up the mountain, leaving every other rider for dead, ****insert sound of needle being dragged across record and stopped here**** ...oh yes, that's right, it doesn't happen.

...some people don't seem to get this 'context' lark at all.

(Just to reiterate, Im not a fan of Wiggins particularly, in fact I don't idolise any particular riders, also I'll not say Wiggins is clean, or doped, there's nothing much there to see or in the way of evidence.... but to draw parallels in his words to LA's and read that as possibly an indication of anything is pretty much chicken oriental. Konnie Huck can say 'I love kids' and Michael Jackson can say 'I love kids', but its who's saying the words them that makes you wonder, and puts it in context).

le_patron

mfin wrote:

le patron wrote:

When Armstrong chooses to divert the question to focus on the effort and sacrifice of the the athletes, he is pilloried. When Wiggins does it he is excused for saying what he thinks in the heat of the moment and making a good point.
When Armstrong says that his performances were improved by being the most dedicated in training, everyine coughs BS, but with Wiggins it is a sign of dedication and preparation (if you can use that word innocently any more).

When Armstrong shoots off up the mountain, leaving every other rider for dead then he's an inspiration.
When Wiggins shoots off up the mountain, leaving every other rider for dead, ****insert sound of needle being dragged across record and stopped here**** ...oh yes, that's right, it doesn't happen.

...some people don't seem to get this 'context' lark at all.

Agree. There are some good defences, problem is Wiggins hasn't used any of them.

mfin

le patron wrote:

Agree. There are some good defences, problem is Wiggins hasn't used any of them.

That's fair enough observation in this couple of sentences response from him to a question, but he has made some good stances over his career so far.

He's not really under any suspicion anyway, not proper expert suspicion, (as far as we know), so all this doesn't much matter, he's entitled to a damn good swear

richard wants a baum

le patron wrote:

When Cadel flips out out he's a weirdo, losing the plot and to be laughed at. When Wiggins does he's letting off steam and preparing himself cleverly for the TT.
When Armstrong chooses to divert the question to focus on the effort and sacrifice of the the athletes, he is pilloried. When Wiggins does it he is excused for saying what he thinks in the heat of the moment and making a good point.
When Armstrong says that his performances were improved by being the most dedicated in training, everyine coughs BS, but with Wiggins it is a sign of dedication and preparation (if you can use that word innocently any more). The list goes on, but essentially most people of the same nationality will tend to put a more positive slant on the same facts. And others are getting a sense of déjà vu here and asking the obvious questions.

Personally I don't think he 's been star-trekking, but I also think all the questions are valid and should be expected and dealt with. Admittedly I have no idea what level of sacrifice is required to get to where Wiggins is right now and maybe it would irk me if people assumed I took a short-cut through the pharmacy, but I would expect the question and so should Wiggins, Brailsford and Sky.

This is probably the most sensible snap shoot so far +1

cookiemonster

I'm not even paricularly a fan of Wiggins, but what else could he say other than a meaninless platitude or a tirade?

He could have said something along the lines of "given the history of cycling over the last fifteen years and the fact that the majority of TdF titles in that time have been reallocated or are under suspicion, I understand why questions such as these arise. However as both a team and individuals we in Sky have taken a stand against the use of Peds. The results you see today are through exceptionally hard training and excellent team management"

Or something like that.

But he didnt though; what he said was more reminiscent of George W's "They hate us because of our freedom" - attacking the motives of the questioners, rather than addressing the subject directly and thereby walking straight into comparisons with armstrong.

MrTapir

richard wants a baum wrote:

le patron wrote:

When Cadel flips out out he's a weirdo, losing the plot and to be laughed at. When Wiggins does he's letting off steam and preparing himself cleverly for the TT.
When Armstrong chooses to divert the question to focus on the effort and sacrifice of the the athletes, he is pilloried. When Wiggins does it he is excused for saying what he thinks in the heat of the moment and making a good point.
When Armstrong says that his performances were improved by being the most dedicated in training, everyine coughs BS, but with Wiggins it is a sign of dedication and preparation (if you can use that word innocently any more). The list goes on, but essentially most people of the same nationality will tend to put a more positive slant on the same facts. And others are getting a sense of déjà vu here and asking the obvious questions.

Personally I don't think he 's been star-trekking, but I also think all the questions are valid and should be expected and dealt with. Admittedly I have no idea what level of sacrifice is required to get to where Wiggins is right now and maybe it would irk me if people assumed I took a short-cut through the pharmacy, but I would expect the question and so should Wiggins, Brailsford and Sky.

This is probably the most sensible snap shoot so far +1

I disagree, I think the comparison with Armstrong is spurious because Wiggins hasnt actually done or been associated with anything suspicious. Its only because he is doing well at the moment, which is silly. Would people be happy if no one won and everyone lost, just so Internet Crusaders were satisfied?

richard wants a baum

I dont think it was comparing Armstrong to Wiggins it was comparing how what one says is taken and how something very similiar said by another is defended ? I don't think Wiggins is doping, very unlikely but his little paddy wack was stupid, if your leading the Tour expect to has some questions to do with doping reacting the way he did just makes him look suspicious

slim_boy_fat

Another take on it and a bit more background on the lead up to the outburst.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... quent.html

MrTapir

richard wants a baum wrote:

I dont think it was comparing Armstrong to Wiggins it was comparing how what one says is taken and how something very similiar said by another is defended ? I don't think Wiggins is doping, very unlikely but his little paddy wack was stupid, if your leading the Tour expect to has some questions to do with doping reacting the way he did just makes him look suspicious

But the whole point is that Wiggins has now done some good rides, and thats it, yet suddenly he is under this shroud of suspicion from people who ask silly questions without any actual evidence or research to back their assertions up. I would have thought there is only so long one can put up with it. The accusations are effectively baseless and thats where the anger is from. With Armstrong the accusations weren't baseless and his responses were an exercise in carefully constructed PR.

TMR

Any video yet?

tremayne

Slim Boy Fat wrote:

Another take on it and a bit more background on the lead up to the outburst.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... quent.html

Very well written article and gets to the truth of this 'issue'.

Well worth reading - and is only a few paragraphs.

PKRAZOR

Christ, reading some of the replies here does my head in.

All of you lot trying to be saints, saying Wiggins could have handled it differently, he could have said this..he could have said that. Why the f*ck should he?

He comes from up north and speaks his mind, exactly how he should do, more sportsmen should behave like that instead of trying to be clean cut and boring just for marketing purposes. You lot make me sick. You want exciting sports stars but you whinge when they dont have a personality. I remember the days when Barry Sheene would turn up at a race, half p*ssed, an air hostess tart in each arm, smoking ciggies, he didnt worry about the media and they loved him for it.

This f*cking world, as Wiggins said, its full of c*nts and half of them seem to be on here trying to promote a sterile life.

F*ck off.

disgruntledgoat

PKRAZOR wrote:

He comes from up north .

Ummm no he doesn't.

ddraver

Well...you can go and ask them yourseleves - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... cipal.html

disgruntledgoat

ddraver wrote:

Well...you can go and ask them yourseleves - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... cipal.html

That sounds quite interesting... I may sign up to Twitter and give him dog's abuse just to get an invite.

ALthough, the abuse would be centred around him supporting Wigan Rugby League, does that still count? I can demonstrate how they were guilty of financial doping for a decade.

Pross

disgruntledgoat wrote:

PKRAZOR wrote:

He comes from up north .

Ummm no he doesn't.

The poster is from London, presumably south of the river, and therefore Brad really does come from up north to him

frenchfighter

I wonder why some threads go for miles. This one just keeps on giving. I stopped reading after the 2nd page.

disgruntledgoat

frenchfighter wrote:

I wonder why some threads go for miles. This one just keeps on giving. I stopped reading after the 2nd page.

And yet you still took time to comment.

rdt

The Mad Rapper wrote:

Any video yet?

AFAIAA, only the cameraman incident so far [ http://www.cyclismas.com/2012/07/wiggin ... sults-fly/ ], not the %*@!#!$*g polemic.

RichN95.

ddraver wrote:

Well...you can go and ask them yourseleves - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... cipal.html

A nice idea, but Brailsford is missing the point there. Anonymous accusers don't want the truth, they want 'truth' of their own construction. And certainly don't want clean cycling. What they want is to be indigent, to take the moral high ground and to feel that special sense of superiority that comes from separating yourself from the mainstream by criticising what they enjoy. They want the idea of being important by having followers of blog and tweets. With clean cycling that goes away, because they have no actual connection to cycling. Without gossip, they become irrelevant.