Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Bradley Wiggins

I have never seen a worse TV interview than the one Bradley 'blinky' Wiggins gave to the BBC to discuss whether he'd crossed the imaginary 'ethical line' ('cheated' in old school English). They say blinking is a sign of lying and I could barely keep up with Bradley's eyes.

Where can he go from here as it seems to be a PR disaster?
«134

Comments

  • Press outing him as a tax avoider now.
  • Interesting to hear about the blinking as I havent seen the video but heard the interview on the radio last night and thought he sounded really convincing.
  • edited March 6

    Interesting to hear about the blinking as I havent seen the video but heard the interview on the radio last night and thought he sounded really convincing.

    I'm the opposite. If I had the level of asthma he claims to have then I reckon I'd struggle to get up the stairs let alone compete,and win! THE toughest sporting event on the planet!
  • Interesting to hear about the blinking as I havent seen the video but heard the interview on the radio last night and thought he sounded really convincing.

    I could barely watch the interview as he looked a bit desperate. Pretty condemning interview with a doctor also re the use of the drug.

    Team Sky look all washed up to me....
  • I saw it. It was cringeworthy. Yes he has Asthma and yes he qualifies for the medical exemption - but to suddenly need the drug just before a demanding stage where it might give (however slight) an advantage doesn't feel ethically right.
  • cafc-west said:

    I saw it. It was cringeworthy. Yes he has Asthma and yes he qualifies for the medical exemption - but to suddenly need the drug just before a demanding stage where it might give (however slight) an advantage doesn't feel ethically right.

    The interview with a doctor was pretty damning re its use a TUE - all looks pretty bad.
  • You have two groups, those that want to believe he/cycling is guilty and those that don't want to believe that is the case. I'm in the second group and therefore didn't pick up on the blinking and did think he sounded convincing.
    Why use all that money on scientist, time and effort, when they could have used the much cheaper, well proven methods of liars blinking?
  • I'd be very careful about assessing someone's guilt or otherwise based on body language.

    Find the whole saga just very sad.

    Indeed.
  • You have two groups, those that want to believe he/cycling is guilty and those that don't want to believe that is the case. I'm in the second group and therefore didn't pick up on the blinking and did think he sounded convincing.
    Why use all that money on scientist, time and effort, when they could have used the much cheaper, well proven methods of liars blinking?

    Have you watched the interview - it's an utter car crash. The use of this drug is very suspicious- David Millar gave evidence about its performance enhancing qualities.

    I would love to believe Wiggins is clean in the same way that I wanted to believe Lance Armstrong was clean - sadly I feel Team Sky have lost any credibility.
  • Sponsored links:


  • I'd be very careful about assessing someone's guilt or otherwise based on body language.

    Find the whole saga just very sad.

    Read up about the whole use of the TUE in this case - hard not to draw conclusions.

    Would anyone on here feel confident backing Bradley as clean?
  • The problem you got is that for years and years Lance Armstrong lied about his drug taking so there aren't too many people who are willing to accept the word of a top cyclist.

    That said, it appears that a large part of the DMCS select committee's findings are based on an anonymous source. It would appear that at this time, no real evidence has been produced and they have admitted themselves that in regard to the 'package' they have no idea what was in it, yet go on to say that Team Sky's explanation is implausible and they have no evidence to back it up. Seems a touch hypocritical to me.

    If the DCMS select committee have enough evidence to prove that there has been a calculated program within Team Sky to deliberately take advantage of the grey areas around the drug regulations, they should publish it all, and their anonymous source needs to man up and point the finger personally. Otherwise this is just another game of he said she said.
  • bobmunro said:

    I'd be very careful about assessing someone's guilt or otherwise based on body language.

    Find the whole saga just very sad.

    Read up about the whole use of the TUE in this case - hard not to draw conclusions.

    Would anyone on here feel confident backing Bradley as clean?
    I wouldn't be confident that any of the top cyclists are clean.

    But innocent until proven guilty - unless and until WADA or any other body have proof rather than supposition or hearsay there is little choice other than to accept his word.
    He may be technically and officially innocent, but morally?

  • Judging from the article I read on the investigation and report into Team Sky et al it sounded pretty damning. It seemed to be that the commission called them cheaters without using the word.

    I've always been very cynical of how clean all high level competition is, especially when big money is involved, and honestly believe that almost all high level sports has a higher degree of doping than most realise or is reported on. Team Sky may not have been blood doping but I do think they were abusing the system to get an unfair advantage.
  • Someone I work with absolutely despises this man. He said he was at a charity function where Wiggins was the guest of honour and when his wife asked for a photo he got his personal security to get her away, with my colleague hearing him call her an irritating cow. When my colleague called him out for it he had his security throw him out... of a charity event!

    I understand if it is in the street but why does he need security? and why would he agree to attend a charity function if he didn't want attention?

    Needless to say my colleague is very chipper this morning, and with the news of the tax dodging as well he sees that he has had his comeuppance.
  • bobmunro said:

    I'd be very careful about assessing someone's guilt or otherwise based on body language.

    Find the whole saga just very sad.

    Read up about the whole use of the TUE in this case - hard not to draw conclusions.

    Would anyone on here feel confident backing Bradley as clean?
    I wouldn't be confident that any of the top cyclists are clean.

    But innocent until proven guilty - unless and until WADA or any other body have proof rather than supposition or hearsay there is little choice other than to accept his word.
    He may be technically and officially innocent, but morally?

    But you cannot regulate a sport (or indeed anything) based on morality - it has to be based on rules. If he hasn't broken the rules then he is innocent of wrongdoing. If the rules allow for something that appears to be immoral, or is immoral, then the rules should be changed.
  • bobmunro said:

    bobmunro said:

    I'd be very careful about assessing someone's guilt or otherwise based on body language.

    Find the whole saga just very sad.

    Read up about the whole use of the TUE in this case - hard not to draw conclusions.

    Would anyone on here feel confident backing Bradley as clean?
    I wouldn't be confident that any of the top cyclists are clean.

    But innocent until proven guilty - unless and until WADA or any other body have proof rather than supposition or hearsay there is little choice other than to accept his word.
    He may be technically and officially innocent, but morally?

    But you cannot regulate a sport (or indeed anything) based on morality - it has to be based on rules. If he hasn't broken the rules then he is innocent of wrongdoing. If the rules allow for something that appears to be immoral, or is immoral, then the rules should be changed.
    But if the public, media and business see him as having morally cheated, it will destroy his "national treasure" status, and the TV appearances, adverts and sponsorship he gets from it
  • bobmunro said:

    bobmunro said:

    I'd be very careful about assessing someone's guilt or otherwise based on body language.

    Find the whole saga just very sad.

    Read up about the whole use of the TUE in this case - hard not to draw conclusions.

    Would anyone on here feel confident backing Bradley as clean?
    I wouldn't be confident that any of the top cyclists are clean.

    But innocent until proven guilty - unless and until WADA or any other body have proof rather than supposition or hearsay there is little choice other than to accept his word.
    He may be technically and officially innocent, but morally?

    But you cannot regulate a sport (or indeed anything) based on morality - it has to be based on rules. If he hasn't broken the rules then he is innocent of wrongdoing. If the rules allow for something that appears to be immoral, or is immoral, then the rules should be changed.
    But if the public, media and business see him as having morally cheated, it will destroy his "national treasure" status, and the TV appearances, adverts and sponsorship he gets from it
    Yes, I agree with that.
  • bobmunro said:

    bobmunro said:

    I'd be very careful about assessing someone's guilt or otherwise based on body language.

    Find the whole saga just very sad.

    Read up about the whole use of the TUE in this case - hard not to draw conclusions.

    Would anyone on here feel confident backing Bradley as clean?
    I wouldn't be confident that any of the top cyclists are clean.

    But innocent until proven guilty - unless and until WADA or any other body have proof rather than supposition or hearsay there is little choice other than to accept his word.
    He may be technically and officially innocent, but morally?

    But you cannot regulate a sport (or indeed anything) based on morality - it has to be based on rules. If he hasn't broken the rules then he is innocent of wrongdoing. If the rules allow for something that appears to be immoral, or is immoral, then the rules should be changed.
    The DCMS report basically seems to read "We know you were cheating but we can't prove it. You know you were cheating and you can't prove that you weren't". I would have to think that the committee has got to be pretty sure of the facts to even go that far and the whole thing with the jiffy bag stinks to high heaven.

  • Sponsored links:


  • If this is true, you can bet the other teams are also doing it. The only reason any of this came to light was thanks to Russian hackers releasing the TUE certificates otherwise we wouldn't have had a scooby.
  • Wiggins didn't technically break any rules when he invested in a charity that was set up to avoid tax. The charity was a front and received £176m in "donations" but actually only passed on £150k to charitable causes and tried to claim £46m in Gift Aid from HMRC! It was subsequently closed down.

    Another example of the thin line between doing something that benefits but isn't ethically correct?

  • Innocent until proven guilty.
  • BDL said:

    If this is true, you can bet the other teams are also doing it. The only reason any of this came to light was thanks to Russian hackers releasing the TUE certificates otherwise we wouldn't have had a scooby.

    This is another scenario to consider

    Yes Team SKY started as a whiter than white team yet if they have cheated, why did they change from that approach as they have banned the likes of Tiernan-Locke for failing drugs tests themselves - You have to wonder if they started with good intentions yet having seen how every other team acts, have realised they've a choice:

    (1) Continue with the whiter than white approach, dont win anything and risk SKY pulling out
    (2) Start doing what everyone else is doing, win events and so protect the SKY investment
  • Wiggins didn't technically break any rules when he invested in a charity that was set up to avoid tax. The charity was a front and received £176m in "donations" but actually only passed on £150k to charitable causes and tried to claim £46m in Gift Aid from HMRC! It was subsequently closed down.

    Another example of the thin line between doing something that benefits but isn't ethically correct?

    A sportsperson (like a rock star) can normally just about get away with dodgy financial dealings (in the eyes of the public), as they can always play the "I was advised by my accountant, no time to look after my own financial affairs, I can't handle numbers" card...
  • Someone I work with absolutely despises this man. He said he was at a charity function where Wiggins was the guest of honour and when his wife asked for a photo he got his personal security to get her away, with my colleague hearing him call her an irritating cow. When my colleague called him out for it he had his security throw him out... of a charity event!

    I understand if it is in the street but why does he need security? and why would he agree to attend a charity function if he didn't want attention?

    Needless to say my colleague is very chipper this morning, and with the news of the tax dodging as well he sees that he has had his comeuppance.

    He has always come across as a bit of a knob but you kind of forgave him that on the basis of how brilliant he was.

    Team Sky have definitely seen a grey area in the rules and exploited it. Would love to know what goes on in other sports including football. Think we'd all lose faith pretty quickly if we knew the full extent of doping across all sports.
  • Interesting to hear about the blinking as I havent seen the video but heard the interview on the radio last night and thought he sounded really convincing.

    I'm the opposite. If I had the level of asthma he claims to have then I reckon I'd struggle to get up the stairs let alone compete,and win! THE toughest sporting event on the planet!
    Listening to Talksport this morning they had a doctor on talking about 'asthma' in cycling, I was astonished that 40% of top class cyclists suffer from 'asthma' which leads to the logical conclusion that its a convent way to get the gear down you, whatever, the sport has become a joke with the amount of doping claims and counter claims.
    Also you may get a few boxers arguing about how tough cycling is.......do me a favour.
  • They say blinking is a sign of lying and I could barely keep up with Bradley's eyes.

    Where can he go from here as it seems to be a PR disaster?

    This is not necessarily true, the blink rate could be naturally high, increased blink speed can be attributed to stress or anger.

    Many signs of lying are the same as those for being stressed.
  • bobmunro said:

    bobmunro said:

    I'd be very careful about assessing someone's guilt or otherwise based on body language.

    Find the whole saga just very sad.

    Read up about the whole use of the TUE in this case - hard not to draw conclusions.

    Would anyone on here feel confident backing Bradley as clean?
    I wouldn't be confident that any of the top cyclists are clean.

    But innocent until proven guilty - unless and until WADA or any other body have proof rather than supposition or hearsay there is little choice other than to accept his word.
    He may be technically and officially innocent, but morally?

    But you cannot regulate a sport (or indeed anything) based on morality - it has to be based on rules. If he hasn't broken the rules then he is innocent of wrongdoing. If the rules allow for something that appears to be immoral, or is immoral, then the rules should be changed.
    How does ungentlemanly conduct [in football] fit in with morality?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!