Wiggins – Mum when he has a Voice?

This entry was posted in Racing on by .

I read this article at the Guardian that Bradley Wiggins wrote. A lot of the statements here are probably the answers he should have given when he went into his tirade about the people asking him questions about doping.

I do like these few paragraphs though –

“If I doped I would potentially stand to lose everything. It’s a long list. My reputation, my livelihood, my marriage, my family, my house. Everything I have achieved, my Olympic medals, my world titles, the CBE I was given,” he wrote on Friday. “I would have to take my children to the school gates in a small Lancashire village with everyone looking at me, knowing I had cheated, knowing I had, perhaps, won the Tour de France, but then been caught.”

“The insinuations make me angry, because I thought people would look back into my history, the things I’ve said in the past, such as at the start of the 2006 Tour when I turned up for a first go at the race and Operación Puerto kicked off, what I said when Floyd Landis went positive, and what I said when I was chucked out with Cofidis after Cristian Moreni tested positive in 2007.”

“That is not something I wish to live with. Doping would simply be not worth it. This is only sport we are talking about. Sport does not mean more to me than all those other things I have. Winning the Tour de France at any cost is not worth the possibility of losing all that.

“I am not willing to risk all those things I’ve got in my life. I do it because I love it. I don’t do it for a power trip: at the end of the day, I’m a shy bloke looking forward to taking my son to summer rugby camp after the Tour, where he could maybe bump into his hero, Sam Tomkins. That’s what’s keeping me going here. What I love is doing my best and working hard. If I felt I had to take drugs, I would rather stop tomorrow, go and ride club 10-mile time trials, ride to the cafe on Sundays, and work in Tesco stacking shelves.”

And I’m not too big on this one addressing why he isn’t so vocal about the issue now –

“it’s less at the forefront of my mind, because I’m no longer getting beaten by people who then go on and test positive or whatever.”

And then I pretty much think this is total bullshit –

“When I look back, we now have an idea of what was going on in the sport back then, and it was a different era.”

That last statement doesn’t even make any sense. Different era? Back then? What is he talking about. An era in sports history is really a long time, not a year or two or three. Does Bradley count eras in months? If this Lance thing goes south on Lance, then since 1996, we have exactly 2 Tour de France winners that haven’t turned up positive sometime. Even Miguel Indurain, who won from 91-95 skirted some testing issues. But, recently, 2 out of the last 4 Tour de France winners, the guys that stood on the top step of the podium in Paris, spanning a 6 year time period, have had to sit out 2 years for doping infractions. One of those “champions” is still not able to race bicycles. And he calls this a different era, all in the past and not an issue because he can beat everyone now. Huh.

In the last 5 years, he’s been on a team that was removed from the Tour for a doping violations and he says it doesn’t concern him so much because he beats everyone now. Now that Bradley Wiggins has the biggest voice ever, he decides it’s not the time to use it. Wow, that seems pretty uncharacteristic to me, considering how vocal he has historically been on the subject. And mildly selfish. It seems like if you use the rational that he uses above, and realize that he has much, much more to lose now, than 5 years ago, he would be more adamant and vocal when asked questions about doping in the sport, not less.

Anyway, I do like the article. It’s too bad that it has to be addressed so constantly, but that is the way of our sport.

Anyone notice Cadel finishing 4th in the field sprint, 9th overall on the stage yesterday. I like that.

Bradley, back when he was fat, had a chip on his shoulder from getting beaten by drug cheats and couldn’t climb worth a shit. (July 22, 2007 – Source: Bryn Lennon/Getty Images Sport)

10 thoughts on “Wiggins – Mum when he has a Voice?

  1. Bri

    Hey Steve just from a performance aspect of the sport. How does one go from not being able to climb good in 2007 to being one of the sports top climbers 5 years later?

  2. Skippy

    Bri , lots of hard work ! Read my blog post on repetitions ! In fact read http://bit.ly/Obuo0C & http://goo.gl/fb/q7UXl TIME PEOPLE got the message a ” SPORTS MORATORIUM ” is the only way forward !

    Jail time introduced in ALL Countries would be a help also , BUT why should the tax payers carry the burden of the Sporting Powers ?

  3. Doug P

    God I hope he’s not doping. I am of 2 minds about Bradley, on one hand sooo skeptical, (after Lance and Floyd, what sane person wouldn’t be) yet on the other I really want him to be clean. There is one thing for sure, assuming he and Froome have access (or not- I’m jus’ sayin’) to the same dope, at least those 2 are on a level playing field…

  4. Martin Graf

    Steve, a different era doesn’t have to be a long time ago. For Bradley it probably simply means the time when he got beaten by the drug cheats and now, where he can compete clean and win.
    Isn’t it a bit hypocritical to have a caption on the photo that mentions Bradley having a chip on his shoulder from getting beat by drug cheats? I wouldn’t call that a chip on his shoulders, I’d call that being pissed off at having to compete against cheaters.

    For all of you that question his current ability to climb without doping, isn’t that an indication that he no longer has to compete against drug cheats? There are other riders that have gotten a lot better in comparison. Chris Horner at 40 now rides much better than 10 years ago. I think that indicates that riders that have always been clean now rank much higher than they did in the “era” Bradley was talking about.

  5. Rich

    The performance values of training rides (average watts) compared to big races for Wiggins over the course of a season would be a big helper.

    I just cannot believe team Sky no matter how hard I try. I’d like too I really would. I could believe Lemond.

  6. tilford97 Post author

    Martin, I disagree with your definition of an era. When the same guys that have done their 2 year time out are still racing and winning races, then it’s the same era. Come on, want to bet me that Contador doesn’t win the Tour of Spain this year?

    I loved watching Valverde come back and smear everyone early season, after 2 years of not racing. Along with all the other guys. It takes an idiot like Ricco, who doesn’t know how to refrigerate he own blood, to get caught now.

    I don’t disagree that the racing is much cleaner than 10 years ago, but let’s not say it’s not a problem that still needs to be addressed in the sport. Thus, the questions by the media.

    Bradely Wiggins, I feel, has an obligation to address the issue when asked. He didn’t. Then had to backtrack and write a column in a British newspaper to explain why he didn’t. Not the guy I want speaking for “us”.


Comments are closed.