- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Chris Froome with Tour de France and Vuelta winner's jerseys.jpgBradley Wiggins' wife calls Chris Froome a 'slithering reptile'
Sir Bradley Wiggins’ wife, Cath, has called Chris Froome a ‘slithering reptile’. She then later apologised for her comments (after they became public knowledge).
Froome had twice the permitted limit of the anti-asthma drug Salbutamol when tested at the Vuelta a Espana in September.
The drug is not banned outright, but Froome will have to prove that he kept to the permitted dosage and explain why the reading was so high if he is to avoid a ban and the loss of his Vuelta title.
The Team Sky rider insists he has not broken any rules, explaining: "I have got a very clear routine when I use my inhaler and how many times. I have given all that information to the UCI to help get to the bottom of it."
But never mind the ins and outs of salbutamol. The question on everyone’s lips is what does Cath Wiggins think?
The Telegraph reports that a hastily-deleted post on her Facebook page from Wednesday was subsequently put out on Twitter by a third party.
Alongside a photo of Froome, she wrote: “I am going to be sick. Nothing in the news. If I was given to conspiracy theory I’d allege they’d thrown my boy under the bus on purpose to cover for this slithering reptile.”
Last month UK Anti-Doping (Ukad) closed an investigation into Team Sky and British Cycling without charges having failed to identify the contents of the package delivered to Sir Bradley Wiggins at the 2011 Critérium du Dauphiné.
However, many believe that a more significant issue for Wiggins was how the 2012 Tour de France champion made use of therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) to take triamcinolone in the lead-up to major races.
Wiggins was administered the drug for allergies, but a number of professional riders have admitted using it performance enhancement. One who admitted doing so, the commentator David Millar (whose sister is Team Sky’s Director of Business Operations), believes that Team Sky’s approach amounted to ‘gaming the system’.
It seems safe to assume that the Wiggins and Froome families won’t be sharing eggnog over the festive period. The enmity has been common knowledge since a Twitter spat between Cath and Froome’s then-fiancée, now wife, Michelle, during the 2012 Tour.
Nevertheless, Cath Wiggins clearly regrets her latest comments. In a Facebook post last night, she apologised for her lamentable firefighting skills: “Sorry everyone for my emotional comments and insults. Too much stress got the better of me. Heat of the moment thing and certainly not my intent to fan the flames.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Velo-drone 6 min 38 sec ago
I don't think it is peculiarly Dutch even. I've travelled all over Europe for work, and I'd say that the popularity of this style of bike is much...
- hawkinspeter 10 min 1 sec ago
They most certainly do "separate like that"....
- ROOTminus1 1 hour 1 min ago
Strong racing performances in an Olympic year should result in a marked increase in membership. ...
- nick h. 2 hours 53 min ago
Read it again. You seem to have missed what this is all about.
- Secret_squirrel 5 hours 55 min ago
Thanks Neil!
- slc 6 hours 1 min ago
All arguments I am hopeful to see validated, especially (a) and (b) combined....
- hawkinspeter 6 hours 34 min ago
Well, on Lundy the only predators are the humans, and they're far more likely to buy some farmed non-Soay lamb from the pub than try to chase a...
- mdavidford 6 hours 35 min ago
"Just a little bit off the sides"
- mdavidford 6 hours 36 min ago
Given that one of the Oxfordshire councillors took the time to drop into the comments section of the previous article on this story to deny, at...
- Secret_squirrel 7 hours 58 min ago
What you believe doesn't matter. Only physics and engineering does. An undamped steel spring is frikkin lousy for steering where precise tracking...
Add new comment
40 comments
Calling someone a "slithering reptile" when your husband gave a share of the 2012 TdF prize money to every member of his team except Froome is definitely kettle vs pot.
Froome got his share though. Later than everybody else but he still got it.
Every member of his team except Froome helped their team leader and didn't try to fuck him over for personal gain, of course.
I suspect he didn't know, looked it up on Google and ended up with Ian Hislop...
If you like then you may join me in pedantry corner and try and explain why you chose pedants' as opposed to pedants or pedant's corner.
Back to the original point, it was your fucking bullshit logic that was challenged as opposed to a pedantic point.
Presumably, it's a corner belonging to a nitpick of pedants (is that the right collective noun?) though I'd've written it as "pedant's".
I think it should be a grammatist's corner rather than a pedant's corner, either way.
Now grammatists'?
Bill H, it doesn't mean he was or was not forced to write it though, because he didn't write it. Not too difficult a concept.
Yes, we get it Alan - you're a long time resident of pedants' corner.
BBC news now advises that she has apologised and deleted her post. No damage done then.
Froome was only too happy to say it was right to question and doubt Wiggo when he took legal TUE. And then expects everyone to believe him when he says that a scientific urine test showed he was twice over the limit is wrong and he wasn’t over the limit at all. Reptile could be a reasonable description. Utter hypocrite another option.
Methinks your prejudice is showing. Froome hasn't said anywhere that I've seen that his test was wrong, and I've seen several reports where he agrees that it wasn't.
Reckon Cath could take both the Froomeys...
Ha ha ha... you do remember the manner in which Froome systematically went after Wiggins in 2012, ultimately sidelining the defending tour champion from the Tour de France.
You could theorise that Froome essentially ended Wiggins road career.
Fast forward to earlier this year, Froome had absolutely no qualms in throwing Wiggins and for a while his employer under the bus when the whole TUE / jiffy bag thing came out.
I can see why now, with Froome being deomnstrated to be just as loose as Wiggins when it comes to medications, that Wiggins wife would feel pretty aggrieved.
Make no mistake, Froome is as cut throat as they come, happy to step on whoever and do whatever it takes. Its what makes him a champion, but it also makes enemies of those he has stepped on over the years.
Don't get me wrong, Wiggins is no saint by any stretch, but for me its hard to see Wiggins as the bad guy and Froome the good (as portrayed by many comments above), when both are less than ideal to put it politely.
He uses snake oil on his chain. 10% power increase.
Lizard Skins gloves?
Maybe Mrs Froome should post her lots of empty Jiffy bags
Would it help if you slithered down onto the top tube to pedal?
No, you asked whether he was forced to write something in his book. The short answer is no, he wasn't, he didn't write it.
And the main point of this discussion is whether Wiggins' wife could be a bit pissed off that her husband's reputation was being questioned? Froome was also making comment, at a time when he himself should have been under scrutiny.
Bradley Wiggins put his name on the book and took the money, that makes him responsible for the content.
Not at all, my position was in explaing why someone may try and defend her loved one.
And thanks for trying to make my argument for me, I think you missed the point rather though. Just to clarify, nobody was able to "force him to write in his autobiography" if he didn't actually write it...
The logical conclusion of your argument is accurately summarised in my previous post. If you think either of those scenarios paints him in a good light, or absolves him of any responsibility for the outcome, then I'm afraid that there's only one person missing the point here Alan...
You think he wrote his autobiography?
Bless ya!
Ah right, so in your argument, he let someone else write a book in his name, and then either a) didn't bother to check some pretty important 'facts' in it, or b) checked them, knew they were incorrect, and allowed it to be printed anyway.
If your intention here is to try and defend his reputation, you're really not doing a very good job.
David Brailsford pays his wages and said he's innocent, Brad said he's innocent, UKAD and UCI confirm he hasn't a case to answer, why should she think any different.
I mean obviously the internet judge and jury is like the supreme court...
Did any of those people force him to write in his autobiography that he'd "never had an injection"?
She's a passionate Northern lass defending her man.
He's already said they've all been under great pressure, living life in the limelight, his proudest achievements being cast into doubt.
Blimey, I wish I was as perfect as everyone on here!
I think it's the fact that she seems to suggest that his 'proudest achievements being cast into doubt' is the fault of anyone but himself that people are taking issue with.
Do slithering reptiles get asthma.
And if they slither, presumably they don't have legs, so how do they pedal?
Most mysterious. Perhaps the lovely Mrs Wiggins has been in touch with that David Icke. He thinks, as far as I can recall, that the UCI and indeed the whole world government is run by reptiles.
Many snake species have stumps - the remnants of legs. I reckon you could probably get some spd cleats on the bigger species' rear stumps, but I'm not sure they'd achieve Froomey's cadence.
His running isn't too convincing, though, so she might be onto something.
Pages