# Paul Kimmage suspicious of Sky



## martint235 (2 Jan 2013)

Kimmage has now turned his attention to Sky and Bradley Wiggins likening them to US Postal and Lance Armstrong. Here.


----------



## 400bhp (2 Jan 2013)

Not good is it.

:sigh:

Armstrong has a lot to answer for.


----------



## oldroadman (2 Jan 2013)

Kimmage was never quite good enough, and has since turned to accusing anyone any good of what he confessed to doing himself, resorting to the chemical method. He does not seem to be able to accept that post-Armstrong, the sport has shifted in the right direction. The BW tour win suggests that the whole peloton is cleaner, and Sky have their coaching spot on. It's very sad that Kimmage can only see mud slinging as a way to make a living from the sport that once paid him. He looks a bit pathetic, I just hope Sky decide they would like to challenge him in court to prove what he is suggesting.


----------



## Noodley (2 Jan 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Kimmage was never quite good enough, and has since turned to accusing anyone any good of what he confessed to doing himself, resorting to the chemical method.


 
But he has mostly been right. And the "never quite good enough" line is the classic response from those who turn a blind eye to doping...


----------



## Strathlubnaig (2 Jan 2013)

I suspect there are going to be quite a few folk who will refuse to believe any Sky doping stories regardless of origin, much like the villified hordes of Armstrong fanboys. Bit of deja-vu here.


----------



## oldroadman (2 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> But he has mostly been right. And the "never quite good enough" line is the classic response from those who turn a blind eye to doping...


 
Just a small response - he was never quite good enough to make a big impact, a good amateur but didn't have the ability as a pro, although he was OK as a team rider.
Please don't ever, even vaguely, suggest I am amongst those who condone, or turn a blind eye, to doping. It stinks and always will, in any sport.


----------



## Noodley (2 Jan 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Just a small response - he was never quite good enough to make a big impact, a good amateur but didn't have the ability as a pro, although he was OK as a team rider.
> Please don't ever, even vaguely, suggest I am amongst those who condone, or turn a blind eye, to doping. It stinks and always will, in any sport.


 
Perhaps think a bit more about what you post if you do not wish to be associated with the "history" of such comments.


----------



## oldroadman (2 Jan 2013)

That's me told then!


----------



## Globalti (2 Jan 2013)

I heard a sports scientist saying on the radio that after 15 years of "unbelievable" performances, this year's cyclists were turning in "believable" performances in terms of watts per kilo and the times taken up certain well-known climbs. Is Kimmage suggesting that Wiggo and his pals had doped but somehow managed to throttle back and still beat everyone else?


----------



## rich p (2 Jan 2013)

Apart from the times for climbs being slower than for many years, output lower etc, Wiggins didn't simply ride away from his doped up rivals which Armstrong did. One of the major suspicious indicators of LA's drug abuse was the fact that he beat other proven dopers like Pantani, Basso with such apparent ease. Wiggins visibly struggled up some of the mountains and won mainly due to limiting losses and TTing so well.
None of this is proof that BW isn't on the dope but coupled with his stance against doping it convices me as far as is possible. Kimmage is still smarting that he Wiggins didn't want him along for the ride on the Sky bus and the fact that he wasn't keen on discussing dopage in his yellow jersey press conferences.
Much as I admired Kimmage for keeping on keeping on at the cancer in the sport, I think he should do more than just throw accusations around. If he feels there is some evidence out there to be exposed re Sky then he should dig it out much as Walsh did with LA.


----------



## Booyaa (2 Jan 2013)

He does make some good points but always seems to be slinging mud around, not sure I take him very seriously, would be interested to hear Sky's response and hope it is not a "we have nothing to say about this.."


----------



## raindog (2 Jan 2013)

Strathlubnaig said:


> I suspect there are going to be quite a few folk who will refuse to believe any Sky doping stories regardless of origin.


But there aren't any "Sky doping stories" are there? Or have I missed summat?
Surely we need more than "Brad won the Tour, and Sky got second place team prize so they must be doping"?


----------



## beastie (2 Jan 2013)

If any one is doping at sky it is on an individual basis. It would be inconceivable for a team wide structured program to exist. I would just about bet my house on that.


----------



## Andrew_P (2 Jan 2013)

"just about" bet my house. Shows no one is 100% convinced. It would be awful if BW was on the gear, not even bearable to think about.

The article I read late 2012 was about how the skinny guys were winning TT's and how un-natural that is etc.

Kimmage seem like he has one track mind and one line of questions, unless he has any evidence he should just stay stum. He seems to throw so much mud around in the hope that he will be proved right at some point.


----------



## Strathlubnaig (2 Jan 2013)

I'd be very surprised and saddened if any dopage was going on at sky of course, my point was just that there is a faction of fans who could not accept any wrong doing there regardless of who/where the story or rumour came from. Personally I think it was a clean season for them and most others, and hope it continues to improve.


----------



## tug benson (2 Jan 2013)

lets hope sky take Kimmage to the courts....surely Kimmage will have proof of these claims?


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Jan 2013)

This is a longstanding spat between Kimmage and Sky

THis article in July this year sums it up

Wiggins has been deemed as not being sufficiently open and frank.



> “When asked about doping, the answers from Wiggins now sound the same as with Armstrong and Floyd.”
> 
> “I don’t recognise the Wiggins now, compared to the guy I interviewed in 2007 to when he was sent out of the Tour,” he said. “I can’t compare these two guys as their responses are completely the opposite. I don’t understand what has happened. I don’t know how you can lead the Tour de France and not speak out about doping, yet speak out in the past so openly. There’s also a completely about-turn from Wiggins on his response to Armstrong, when compared to his previous stance on anti-doping.
> ​​


----------



## BJH (2 Jan 2013)

I wouldn't bet my house on any pro being clean but Wiggins would be someone that would be high up on the list of people I would consider to be absolutely clean.

PK is interesting and I have a lot of time for him, but he's losing me on this one. 

He mentions the removal of a a team doctor and MR amongst the riders as being doubtful. Not really they publicised the fact that the team were being asked to committ to the fact hey had never been involved with drugs and those that had were allowed to leave so no big surprise.

Then he compares the way the team rode with the way that Postal rode. Sky never dominated the way postal did, if we had seen Cav at he front flying up the mountains he would have had a point. 

I saw a very rich team that bought the best talent they could and used it to protect its leader. 

One similarity but not enough to make this accusation.

It does bring up one point for me around testing protocols. I think Sky's position of we don't need to test because we will ensure that the environment will always be there that riders don't need to is slightly naive. This might work internally and may be great for the riders and staff to be trusted. But, sceptics the press and even PK are looking to be absolutely convinced. 

Not having open results for testing, blood values etc is a mistake. Not being open enough is a mistake, even the now removed decision of not having the riders visible in warm up and warm down was a mistake. 

They need to show absolute visibility - but that does not give PK the right to demand that he personally must be embedded with the team during a Tour before he will believe. What does he want to do, sleep in the same room? No other sport would give the access he appears to want either. It does smack of him being ale to use this crusade as a means of getting him right back in to the heart of the sport.

I judge people on exactly what they say and how they say it, looking forward to Wiggo giving him a swift response as I do wonder whether PK will ever accept any winner as believable clean.


----------



## ufkacbln (2 Jan 2013)

Part of the problem now is that the test results, blood values etc are no longer "proof" that doping does not happen. There are many drugs out there that are still undetectable and could be in use without ever being discovered.

One German expert (George Thevis) was interviewed by Reuters in 2012 and reckoned that there are 100 EPO alternatives



> "They act like EPO but they are structurally different and that means the current EPO tests will not pick them up," he said.
> 
> "Fortunately we know about that problem and we have to develop new tests to help to find these drugs that, according to anecdotal evidence and rumours, are already used in elite sports although they are not officially launched yet.


 
It is a war where for 6 months of the year the drug testers will find a test to beat the PED designers, then inthe next six months the PED designers will modify and beat the testers

Is the use of observers the way forward if you can find a truly independent, incorruptible, and totally scrupulous observer


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> Apart from the times for climbs being slower than for many years, output lower etc, Wiggins didn't simply ride away from his doped up rivals which Armstrong did. One of the major suspicious indicators of LA's drug abuse was the fact that he beat other proven dopers like Pantani, Basso with such apparent ease. Wiggins visibly struggled up some of the mountains and won mainly due to limiting losses and TTing so well.
> None of this is proof that BW isn't on the dope but coupled with his stance against doping it convices me as far as is possible. Kimmage is still smarting that he Wiggins didn't want him along for the ride on the Sky bus and the fact that he wasn't keen on discussing dopage in his yellow jersey press conferences.
> Much as I admired Kimmage for keeping on keeping on at the cancer in the sport, I think he should do more than just throw accusations around. If he feels there is some evidence out there to be exposed re Sky then he should dig it out much as Walsh did with LA.


 
Interesting change, last time this was raised your opinion was that it was all irrelevant, old hat and as was now well on the grounds that Wiggins was now speaking out against Armstrong, and that to criticise either Sky and Wiggins was simply a pro-Armstrong fantasy!

The criticism of Sky by Kimmage is as relevant now as it was when raised earlier.


----------



## jdtate101 (3 Jan 2013)

The thing that gets me is that he says the SKY performance was too like postal, but that's not what I saw looking at the footage. Yes the team dominated, but if you look closely none of the other teams seem to be riding as a unit. Whenever sky are at the front, cadel and nibali are there with them, but without support (or at the very least just one helper each), whereas sky seem to have been told to ride together all the time. They do say you can't win the tour alone, but only with a strong team, so it begs the question, why didn't the others ride together also? The only other teams that really looked a unit were Saxo (sometimes) and Radioshack, but sky always looked a unit. One the climbs, each member did his work before peeling off when spent. I didn't see any real strongman acts and none of the sky riders came in far ahead of the competition (20, 30secs at most) or crossed the line together. The time advantages where mostly gained in the TT, which is Brads area of strength and which he was FAR better than his rivals. Kimmage's argument just doesn't stand up this time.

Kimmage has been right on Armstrong, and that was a good thing, but being right once does not make you right all the time. I think all this is a bit of bitterness on his part that they denied him access to the level he wanted, so he's gone on the attack to try and force them to give access next time.


----------



## rich p (3 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Interesting change, last time this was raised your opinion was that it was all irrelevant, old hat and as was now well on the grounds that Wiggins was now speaking out against Armstrong, and that to criticise either Sky and Wiggins was simply a pro-Armstrong fantasy!
> 
> The criticism of Sky by Kimmage is as relevant now as it was when raised earlier.


Sorry, old bean, I have no idea what you're waffling on about, but your grammar and syntax are so appalling it makes comprehension difficult.
Please accept my apologies in advance if English isn't your first language.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (3 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Part of the problem now is that the test results, blood values etc are no longer "proof" that doping does not happen. There are many drugs out there that are still undetectable and could be in use without ever being discovered.
> 
> One German expert (George Thevis) was interviewed by Reuters in 2012 and reckoned that there are 100 EPO alternatives
> ..


 
His name is Mario Thevis, not George Thevis.

He also said:


> Fortunately we know about [the] problem and we have to develop new tests to help to find these drugs that, according to anecdotal evidence and rumours, are already used in elite sports, although they are not officially launched yet.”
> 
> He said that the substances were not widely available, and that those seeking to obtain the substances would need ‘good connections'.
> 
> Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/11385/Anti-doping-scientist-warns-of-undetectable-EPO-variants.aspx#ixzz2GuRHAeTz






Cunobelin said:


> ..
> ..Is the use of observers the way forward if you can find a truly independent, incorruptible, and totally scrupulous observer




I believe that, surprising though it may seem, such people do exist and that almost by definition they are not motivated by greed!


----------



## Radchenister (3 Jan 2013)

I am new to the Pharmstrong / Sky doping accusation debate on here but have watched it unfold.

I've been soaking up the comments from various sources, including Cycling News. Whilst doing so, something sprang to mind; the media didn't dwell too long on the carpet tack incident in the Pyrenees which is probably rightly so, as it might have sparked copy cat actions. People will of course remember when Wiggins enabled the lead group to slow down to allow Evans back into the race; not unusual in history but quite important strategically this time in my view.

When mentioning parallels with the US Postal situation why isn't this brought up? It appeared to be a crucial point of the story of this year's TDF to me ... either it was a very cunning counter bluff to cover their doping master-plan, undertaken by people who were safe in the knowledge that they had a turbo under the bonnet, or perhaps someone will argue it was the actions of a guilty man relenting for a moment ... but I very much doubt that's the case ... more realistically, for me it demonstrated an attitude which is the polar opposite to the win at all costs actions of a certain Mr L.E.Gunderson.

In my mind it's impossible to know for certain if any athlete is clean but then what in life is 100% proven, the precautionary measures are far greater than in the bad old days? I respect Paul Kimmage for his stance and general ambition to clean things up but the current situation appears to be based on speculation through suggested 'similarities', which may be being taken too far; it's not too difficult to generate these sort of accusations if you're half decent with words but the stat's don't really suggest anything untoward, the long peak might be questioned a little but it is not inconceivable that someone could manage this.

Going back to the tack incident and to generalise the situation with TDF win, to me 2012 was unusual as there were no real serious threats to Wiggins, which combined with Sky working as a solid unit (most of the time) and controlling the game (but in a sportsmanlike way), meant the hearts and minds of the peleton had been won over. I believe this helped put Wiggins on the podium and thought this was an inspiring situation in light of the doping storm clouds in the press. I would have to put myself on the edge of the 'don't want to believe' camp but I'm not daft and am ready to be proven wrong, however, in my mind Paul Kimmage either needs to produce some solid evidence or he's in danger of inverting the boy who cried wolf story.


----------



## Hotblack Desiato (3 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> This is a longstanding spat between Kimmage and Sky
> 
> THis article in July this year sums it up
> 
> Wiggins has been deemed as not being sufficiently open and frank.


 
From that article, the following is very disappointing:



> *One major concern for Kimmage is the team’s hiring of Geert Leinders* towards the end of 2010. Previously with the Rabobank team, he came under a shadow in May when former Rabobank team manager Theo de Rooy admitted that *doping was tolerated on the team until 2007, saying that it was a ‘deliberate decision by the medical staff.’ Leinders was the chief doctor at the time* and acknowledged that when he was with the team, EPO was being used*.*





> Kimmage is troubled by his appointment. “When the team started, it said it would use doctors from outside cycling. I don’t see what possible reason there can be for hiring this guy.
> 
> “Prior to that, Sky had different doctors there. There was no explanation about the change. If all along they said, ‘look, this is where we are at, this is what we are doing, this is why we are doing this,’ then fine. At least get it out there, explain it to us and we’ll make up our own mind then. But for all this covert stuff to be going on, it’s not good enough. It is just an extension of what we have had in the past.”


Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12357/Kimmage-disappointed-in-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx#ixzz2Gv8tGrDj

It seems a fair point unfortunately.


----------



## rich p (3 Jan 2013)

Hotblack Desiato said:


> From that article, the following is very disappointing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
This is what Brailsford said about it - you pays your money and takes your choice. I agree that at the very least it was a PR bollock drop

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/we-did-the-right-thing-with-leinders-says-brailsfordhttp://www.cyclingnews.com/news/we-did-the-right-thing-with-leinders-says-brailsford


----------



## Hont (3 Jan 2013)

Both the best and worst of Kimmage highlighted in a single article. The best: unrelenting dog with a bone attitude over the employment of Leinders with the result that Sky re-calibrate it's employment policy. The worst: the lack of professional detachment which means he comes across as a bitter mud-slinger with no facts to back up the accusations. Does he really think Wiggins doped or is he still miffed about his Twitter comment and the lack of access to Sky?

Kimmage is always worth listening to, but sometimes also worth discounting. Not having a bad day in the tour does not mean you dope, just like having a bad day doesn't mean you're clean.


----------



## byegad (3 Jan 2013)

I hope Kimmage is wrong, I'd thoroughly enjoyed Lance's exploits, until disillusionment set in, and the truth was revealed.


----------



## johnr (3 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> This is what Brailsford said about it - you pays your money and takes your choice. I agree that at the very least it was a PR bollock drop
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/we-did-the-right-thing-with-leinders-says-brailsfordhttp://www.cyclingnews.com/news/we-did-the-right-thing-with-leinders-says-brailsford


 I couldn't access the article, but it does seem uncharacteristic of Sky to have let a needle-merchant into the camp. All the more reason to get rid of everyone (Riis) with high-profile involvement in doping. Unless those who facilitate drug cheating fear that their careers may also be curtailed, they aint going to stop. This is the Pharmstrong/current UCI leadership legacy to the sport.


----------



## rich p (3 Jan 2013)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/we-did-the-right-thing-with-leinders-says-brailsford
Does that work john?


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> Sorry, old bean, I have no idea what you're waffling on about, but your grammar and syntax are so appalling it makes comprehension difficult.
> Please accept my apologies in advance if English isn't your first language.



It is always nice to see you resort to infantile ranting when you are selectively unable to remember your previous statements

I think it is called being "in denial"


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jan 2013)

Hotblack Desiato said:


> His name is Mario Thevis, not George Thevis.
> 
> He also said:
> 
> ...



Mario (George was a typo) is sayong the same as my post, I simply chose to expand the point that both the PEDs and tests have a shelf life that is dictated by how quickly the opposition responds

..... and I do believe that there are people out there whose integrity is unquestionable. However whether the cynics out there would believe there testimony is another side to the coin


----------



## rich p (3 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> It is always nice to see you resort to infantile ranting when you are selectively unable to remember your previous statements
> 
> I think it is called being "in denial"


Ranting?


----------



## Noodley (3 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Mario (George was a typo)


 
It wasn't a "typo", you got his name wrong. 

Lance Armstrong-esque if you ask me...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 Jan 2013)

Given the background of cycling, it's not surprising that any team that rapidly gains the ascendancy is going to arouse suspicion. This is as true with track cycling as with pro tour teams - remember the French story about ''magic wheels'' and Baugé questioning Kenny about BC training regimes in a press conference. Britain's rise towards the top of the cycling world has been rapid.

At the same time, Kimmage has been largely vindicated vis-à-vis LA and the UCI, and his credit is high. The question is where does he go from here. Does he continue to act for the good of cycling or does he exploit cycling's credibility gap for the sake of his own career? My impression is that he's currently teetering between the two. 

I think Brailsford is going to have to recognise that PK can cast a thick cloud of doubt over the Sky team and also, more crucially, that this doubt does more harm than good for cycling in general. Blanking PK for his insinuations won't get Sky anywhere because PK will see it as proof that Sky's got something to hide, and meanwhile it will continue to harm cycling. I think DB is going to have to have a long sit down with PK to find what common ground they share (I'd hope this means a commitment to clean cycling and the ability to believe that the cycling's clean) and to find a way of removing some of those doubts that PK holds.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jan 2013)

Let me remind you....



rich p said:


> When was that article written by Kimmage? It's old news which has been superceded by Wiggins' recent categorical anti-Armstrong statements.


 

...seems fairly clear that you are stating that Kimmage's concerns are invalid because Wiggins spoke our against
Armstrong.

So are you now stating that this unequivocal dismissal of Kimmage by yourself is invalid now?

You need to make your mind up?


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> It wasn't a "typo", you got his name wrong.
> 
> Lance Armstrong-esque if you ask me...


 

Another one who dismisses Kimmage on one hand, yet promotes him on the other...




Noodley said:


> Awww poor Uncle Pat says that nasty man Kimmage is picking on him
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-all-ive-done-since-i-became-president-is-fight-doping
> 
> It's almost like reading something Lance woulda said.


 
Now do we accept Kimmage unequivocally when it suits and dismiss him when it doesn't or do we have a realistic debate about reality?


----------



## Noodley (3 Jan 2013)

I have been having realistic debates for years, with others who know what they are on about. That excludes you from it as you quite clearly have not a clue. You simply appear to have some form of obsessive cross-thread incomprehension, making connections where there are none and being very very selective in what you choose to quote. Sounds like trolling to me - which was highlighted many dozens of pages and a few threads ago. Or are you attention-seeking to compensate for some deficits elsewhere?


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> I have been having realistic debates for years, with others who know what they are on about. That excludes you from it as you quite clearly have not a clue. You simply appear to have some form of obsessive cross-thread incomprehension, making connections where there are none and being very very selective in what you choose to quote. Sounds like trolling to me - which was highlighted many dozens of pages and a few threads ago. Or are you attention-seeking to compensate for some deficits elsewhere?


 
Is that a yes or a no then?


Should we:

1. Be listening to Kimmage when he voices suspicion?
2. Ignoring Kimmage when he voices suspicion?
3. As suggested before and dismissed by yourself being realistic about this and actually expecting some sort of proof?

Avoid the answer if you like, but the questions will remain.


----------



## jdtate101 (3 Jan 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I think DB is going to have to have a long sit down with PK to find what common ground they share (I'd hope this means a commitment to clean cycling and the ability to believe that the cycling's clean) and to find a way of removing some of those doubts that PK holds.


 
If I were Brailsford, I would open up SKY to other respected cycling journalists, but NOT PK. That way he cannot question SKY's integrity without also questioning his fellow journalists integrity if they say they observed nothing wrong. It will also teach PK that bully boy tactics and trying to strong arm people by slinging mud doesn't work and will not be rewarded.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (3 Jan 2013)

I think DM's post is spot on really. at the end of the day, whatever he was, whatever he saw and did and however deeply that has embedded his beliefs (prejudices?) Kimmage is now a journalist with a living to make as such. His Armstrong / Postal meal ticket has just expired and he either needs to establish himself as an all round cycling journalist, which with the best will in the world isn't going to be easy for him given the bridges he's burned with the opprobium and negative hyperbole he attaches to the sport OR he needs to set another longrunning doper bandwaggon rolling that he can cash in on.

I think the arms length thing; which seems how Sky and pretty much every pro team in every sport are generally nowadays unless they are playing up to their own well controlled TV channel; just plays into his money making tactics / paranoid delusions / near clairvoyant perspicacity (delete as appropriate).

A mexican stand off will continue between Kimmage and the teams and the UCI. I feel that as time moves him ever further away from being a pro rider in a dirty age to a bitter jpurnalist without friends on the inside as cycling does seem to be making efforts to clean itself up (or if you prefer, dope very much more discretely), he is going to become less and less relevant and I fear he will end up as a David Icke like character making increasingly outlandish comments just to still be visible.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (3 Jan 2013)

jdtate101 said:


> If I were Brailsford, I would open up SKY to other respected cycling journalists, but NOT PK. That way he cannot question SKY's integrity without also questioning his fellow journalists integrity if they say they observed nothing wrong. It will also teach PK that bully boy tactics and trying to strong arm people by slinging mud doesn't work and will not be rewarded.


Yes, I guess that's a good way of not giving way to the strong arm stuff while being demonstrably open.


----------



## ufkacbln (3 Jan 2013)

jdtate101 said:


> If I were Brailsford, I would open up SKY to other respected cycling journalists, but NOT PK. That way he cannot question SKY's integrity without also questioning his fellow journalists integrity if they say they observed nothing wrong. It will also teach PK that bully boy tactics and trying to strong arm people by slinging mud doesn't work and will not be rewarded.


 

Slightly off topic, and will be unpopular and dismissed by some, but there is a relevance.

If you look at the history of War Correspondents there was an issue with censorship, and only what the Government wanted reporting was released. Then came Vietnam and a swathe of independent reporting that was not only revealing, but all of a sudden the good and bad were both reported and events like the My Lai massacre were reported and investigated. After this the censorship returned and again censorship ruled as a backlash

Then came the Falklands and the journalists were "embedded" with the troops. It was questioned whether this was "valid". An article in the Independent is typical of this criticism as the policy extended into more recent conflicts.

As posted before, independent and scrupulous observation may be a way forward, but given the questioning of the value of "embedding" journalists, how do you guarantee thetthe same issues do not occur?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (3 Jan 2013)

jdtate101 said:


> If I were Brailsford, I would open up SKY to other respected cycling journalists, but NOT PK. That way he cannot question SKY's integrity without also questioning his fellow journalists integrity if they say they observed nothing wrong. It will also teach PK that bully boy tactics and trying to strong arm people by slinging mud doesn't work and will not be rewarded.


Kind of agree, certainly on the 'two fingers to bully boy proving guilt by innuendo' sentiment but you'd quickly get to the point where the team has neutered the journalists into bland non stories and managed events by being able to revoke their access rights if they cross a line or report something Brailsford and co disapprove of. If Sky went for open doors it would have to be absolute openness for anyone to metaphorically wander in and poke about, otherwise you just give PK the ammo he needs to wage a perpetual media conspiracy therory war against the closed shop of teams and Journo's he's not part of.


----------



## Radchenister (3 Jan 2013)

... perhaps I'm confused here, he is still a journalist and not a regulator now?


----------



## rich p (4 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Let me remind you....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Hmmm, read this carefully before replying. Kimmage had said that Wiggins didn't speak out against doping anymore but when the post to which I was replying was written, he (Brad - in case you're not keeping up) had done so. Hence the reference to having been superceded. Are you getting it yet?



Cunobelin said:


> So are you now stating that this unequivocal dismissal of Kimmage by yourself is invalid now?


 
Unequivocal dismissal of Kimmage? Nope, sorry, you lost me again but please don't stop trying.
P.S. I hope you'll show as much alacrity and interest in pro-race punditry when the TDU kicks off the new season, as you do in trolling trawling back through very old posts and quoting out of context. Happy New Year.

You need to make your mind up?


----------



## slowmotion (4 Jan 2013)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Kind of agree, certainly on the 'two fingers to bully boy proving guilt by innuendo' sentiment but you'd quickly get to the point where the team has neutered the journalists into bland non stories and managed events by being able to revoke their access rights if they cross a line or report something Brailsford and co disapprove of.


 
I'm no expert at all, but I think PK showed a certain amount of courage in the past as regards doping, particularly in exposing LA. I found his bravery at the the Tour of California news conference particularly impressive....and chilling to see a bullying LA and his sycophantic press and publicity machinery in slick, evil motion. One more time...
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI[/media]


----------



## johnr (4 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/we-did-the-right-thing-with-leinders-says-brailsford
> Does that work john?


 Thanks


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> ....


 
Could you correct the use of quotes I do not wish to have my user name associated with your standards of posting.

The infantile need to use insults is your issue and the way you have misused the quotes system it appears that I have done so. Please corect this, or if you are unable to do so either ask the moderators to do so or delete the post.

(Edited)


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> *Hmmm, read this carefully before replying. Kimmage had said that Wiggins didn't speak out against doping anymore but when the post to which I was replying was written, he (Brad - in case you're not keeping up) had done so. Hence the reference to having been superceded.* *Are you getting it yet?*​


​​Which is different from your present stance.....​​​


> Unequivocal dismissal of Kimmage? Nope, sorry, you lost me again but please don't stop trying.


 
Try reading your own posts then...it will become clear, if you don't understand your own post then I can't help"


*



P.S. I hope you'll show as much alacrity and interest in pro-race punditry when the TDU kicks off the new season, as you do in trolling trawling back through very old posts and quoting out of context. Happy New Year.

Click to expand...

*​ 

I love that anything that you are uncomfotable with or that is insufficiently sycophantic to your agenda is "trolling", as for the TDU... if Kimmage comments then I will certainly revisit this thread


----------



## Noodley (4 Jan 2013)

Ah right, got you now. You have no interest in pro cycling. That makes sense.

And if you'd care to look at my first reply to this thread you would see that I stated Kimmage has mostly been correct in his suspicions. I am open to him being correct in this instance.


----------



## jdtate101 (4 Jan 2013)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Kind of agree, certainly on the 'two fingers to bully boy proving guilt by innuendo' sentiment but you'd quickly get to the point where the team has neutered the journalists into bland non stories and managed events by being able to revoke their access rights if they cross a line or report something Brailsford and co disapprove of. If Sky went for open doors it would have to be absolute openness for anyone to metaphorically wander in and poke about, otherwise you just give PK the ammo he needs to wage a perpetual media conspiracy therory war against the closed shop of teams and Journo's he's not part of.


 
But what company or business in the world would just let anyone wonder round anytime they liked? What if PK wanted to sit in on sensitive meetings that discussed riders medical issues (such as Dowset's hemophilia or something more personal) if PK was refused entry for confidentiality reasons, he would just cry foul. Full access does not mean a license to pry into private matters or trade secrets. Using Cunobelin's analogy above of embedded war journalists, they have mis-reported and given sensitive information away many times in the past sometimes leading to operations being changed or cancelled, sometimes directly putting lives at risk. What's to say someone like PK won't also give something away. This is bike racing, but it's also a business with many people's livelihoods bound up in it. You have to wonder what level of info would PK be satisfied with, for instance, does he want access to both sky pro cycling / British cycling company financial records as well as the riders personal bank accounts so he can see if any dodgy deals are going on? That would be both illegal as well as highly immoral......where does it end?


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> Ah right, got you now. You have no interest in pro cycling. That makes sense.


 
Your interpretation....



> And if you'd care to look at my first reply to this thread you would see that I stated Kimmage has mostly been correct in his suspicions. I am open to him being correct in this instance.


 
Excallent, thank you for clarifying this..... that was not your previous stance.[/quote]


----------



## rich p (4 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Could you correct the use of quotes I do not wish to have my user name associated with your standards of posting.
> 
> The infantile need to use insults is your issue and the way you have misused the quotes system it appears that I have done so. Please corect this, or if you are unable to do so either ask the moderators to do so or delete the post.
> 
> (Edited)


 Insults? Is that the 4th or 5th time you have referred to my reasoned replies to you, as infantile/pram-toy interface rants? 

I really don't know I bother trying to reply sensibly but I supose it's my inherent good nature and I'll give it another shot.
If you read (and comprehend,) most of the posts on this thread, you will see that most of the posters believe that Kimmage is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. It's not the posters who are being inconsistent, it's Kimmage.
In actual fact in real life, most people are inconsistent but your trawling back through my old posts to prove that I have been, is verging on the obsessive and stalking. Whilst it's quite flattering, I really think you should take a deep breath and re-focus your forensic analysis on something more worthwhile.


----------



## User169 (4 Jan 2013)

jdtate101 said:


> But what company or business in the world would just let anyone wonder round anytime they liked? What if PK wanted to sit in on sensitive meetings that discussed riders medical issues (such as Dowset's hemophilia or something more personal) if PK was refused entry for confidentiality reasons, he would just cry foul. Full access does not mean a license to pry into private matters or trade secrets. Using Cunobelin's analogy above of embedded war journalists, they have mis-reported and given sensitive information away many times in the past sometimes leading to operations being changed or cancelled, sometimes directly putting lives at risk. What's to say someone like PK won't also give something away. This is bike racing, but it's also a business with many people's livelihoods bound up in it. You have to wonder what level of info would PK be satisfied with, for instance, does he want access to both sky pro cycling / British cycling company financial records as well as the riders personal bank accounts so he can see if any dodgy deals are going on? That would be both illegal as well as highly immoral......where does it end?


 
Well PK's done it before with Garmin and seemed to come away satisfied, so I don't think the problems you raise (although all valid) can be insurmountable. Frankly though it seems slightly lazy journalism to me - if PK thinks there really is a problem with Sky, he should go and find the evidence as Walsh did with Armstrong.


----------



## Radchenister (4 Jan 2013)

Get a room you two  !

--------------------------------

My thoughts exactly JDTate101: whilst tracking the issues over the summer I ended up hitting the 'Like' button for BikePure and Dr Michael Ashenden (who's factual information is fascinating) on Facebook in order to keep up to date with issues. You'll be aware that LeMond and his gang have had their own 'Change Cycling Now' summit and there are even off shoot pages on Facebook like the one called 'Greg LeMond for UCI President'.

Whilst on the whole I support these folks in principle, I have seen them work themselves into an insular, entrenched and confrontational mindset on occasions; some of the comments are so extreme that they make you wonder why some of them are involved in cycling and I've even found myself having some sympathy for McQuaid when he hit back querying what LeMond had been doing for cycling for a couple of decades or so.

Unveiling the Pharmstrong thing has been like a divorce in the family for cycling - currently feelings are still running high and this is to be expected I suppose but I would hope that balance will be found and that self destructive bickering can eventually translate into open critical self analysis and an improved culture and procedures.

At the moment Paul Kimmage is still in fight mode, clearly still continuing to 'right the wrongs' that he perceives to be all around him, he might have a point but equally he may be seeing monsters in the shadows, perhaps out of engrained habit or through the stress of pending court cases (?). I do have some sympathy for his position but in my view he is in danger of hampering the sport from moving on if his accusations are speculative, who is next in the PK gun sites?

I like reading Dave Brailsford's quotes, they are straight, honest, balanced, self-reflective at times but underlined by professionalism ... I am a bit biased as a fan of course but they are the here and now, PK is currently tarring Sky with the brush of yesteryear; it appears he's a little irritated because Wiggins didn't want him popping up at the breakfast table ... hardly a surprise that this stance came from Wiggins and totally in character IMHO.


----------



## Alun (4 Jan 2013)

I can't believe that Kimmage thinks he has some sort of right to be embedded with Sky, or any other team. He then makes unfounded allegations out of spite because he's not granted full access. Can you imagine what would happen, if he turned his attentions to football and turned up at Old Trafford, telling Alex Ferguson that he's going to be living with them for the next few months and attending all meeting and training sessions?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (4 Jan 2013)

jdtate101 said:


> But what company or business in the world would just let anyone wonder round anytime they liked? What if PK wanted to sit in on sensitive meetings that discussed riders medical issues (such as Dowset's hemophilia or something more personal) if PK was refused entry for confidentiality reasons, he would just cry foul. Full access does not mean a license to pry into private matters or trade secrets. Using Cunobelin's analogy above of embedded war journalists, they have mis-reported and given sensitive information away many times in the past sometimes leading to operations being changed or cancelled, sometimes directly putting lives at risk. What's to say someone like PK won't also give something away. This is bike racing, but it's also a business with many people's livelihoods bound up in it. You have to wonder what level of info would PK be satisfied with, for instance, does he want access to both sky pro cycling / British cycling company financial records as well as the riders personal bank accounts so he can see if any dodgy deals are going on? That would be both illegal as well as highly immoral......where does it end?


 
isn't this a bit of an about face from your earlier post where you suggested journo's other than PK be granted access? *confused now*

Your post quoted is exactly the point I was making, they would be so controlled as to what they could see that they would neutered by managed events and only able to produce bland non stories.


----------



## Radchenister (4 Jan 2013)

shouldbeinbed said:


> isn't this a bit of an about face from your earlier post where you suggested journo's other than PK be granted access? *confused now*
> 
> Your post quoted is exactly the point I was making, they would be so controlled as to what they could see that they would neutered by managed events and only able to produce bland non stories.


 
Hang on - doesn't he write for the Daily Mail ?!


----------



## shouldbeinbed (4 Jan 2013)

slowmotion said:


> I'm no expert at all, but I think PK showed a certain amount of courage in the past as regards doping, particularly in exposing LA. I found his bravery at the the Tour of California news conference particularly impressive....and chilling to see a bullying LA and his sycophantic press and publicity machinery in slick, evil motion. One more time...
> [media]
> ]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI[/media]




Couldn't agree more, but that ship has now sailed, in no small part thanks to his campaigning, so he seems to be casting around for another bad guy to keep his profile up/money coming in.

Ita the Donal MacIntyre type scenario, once he'd done 1 TV series of undercover exposes, his face is known and theres no second bite at infiltrating the football holigan gangs and care homes etc so he has had to reinvent himself as a front of house presenter.

With the aggressive way he's gone about his journalism and the bridges he's burned along the way I don't think PK has the connections to reinvent himself as a run of the mill sport/cycling journalist & I fear he'll become a parody of what he once was.


----------



## tigger (4 Jan 2013)

shouldbeinbed said:


> With the aggressive way he's gone about his journalism and the bridges he's burned along the way I don't think PK has the connections to reinvent himself as a run of the mill sport/cycling journalist & I fear he'll become a parody of what he once was.


 
That sums up Kimmage quite nicely for me. His passion for cycling seems to have been replaced solely by a blinkered passion for exposure(s).


----------



## jdtate101 (4 Jan 2013)

shouldbeinbed said:


> isn't this a bit of an about face from your earlier post where you suggested journo's other than PK be granted access? *confused now*
> 
> Your post quoted is exactly the point I was making, they would be so controlled as to what they could see that they would neutered by managed events and only able to produce bland non stories.


 
I was merely saying the full access that PK wanted was at odds with what most businesses would be inclined to put up with. SKY "could" form a united standard (best practice) for access with defined rules to protect privacy and confidentiality that both journo's and the teams could sign up to. That way everyone knows exactly where they stand. I would like to see SKY give access to other journo's along these lines, but still give PK the rub off.


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> Insults? Is that the 4th or 5th time you have referred to my reasoned replies to you, as infantile/pram-toy interface rants?
> 
> I really don't know I bother trying to reply sensibly but I supose it's my inherent good nature and I'll give it another shot.
> If you read (and comprehend,) most of the posts on this thread, you will see that most of the posters believe that Kimmage is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. It's not the posters who are being inconsistent, it's Kimmage.
> In actual fact in real life, most people are inconsistent but your trawling back through my old posts to prove that I have been, is verging on the obsessive and stalking. Whilst it's quite flattering, I really think you should take a deep breath and re-focus your forensic analysis on something more worthwhile.


As before please correct the use of quotes or if you are unable to do so, delete the post


----------



## Noodley (4 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Excallent, thank you for clarifying this..... that was not your previous stance


 
It is always my position, so I have no idea what you are meaning - at present, I do not believe they are doping, but I am open to it being true.

edit - I removed your errant quote mark for you...


----------



## Noodley (4 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> As before please correct the use of quotes or if you are unable to do so, delete the post


 
Dear god!!


----------



## BJH (4 Jan 2013)

The point here is why should Sky accept having to be totally open to PK - great for him if he can get this as it puts him right into the front line of for the biggest stories from the biggest team.

All I read from his accusation is that Sky won the TDF and could use a number of riders to control the race.

Maybe he should look at what almost anyone with two brain cells could see before the race, Sky had an outstanding leader with an expensively gathered team in full support of him riding a course that was relatively flat and included two long time trials - in other words the best chance Wiggo was ever going to have of winning which he went out and took with both hands.

If he comes back with something showing therapeutic use exemptions, statements by former team mates or back office staff, financial transactions with dodgy doctors or UCI officials then I am will be interested.

Until then he's seeing reds under the beds - although the caveat here is that just because your a schizophrenic it doesn't mean they are not out to get you


----------



## ufkacbln (4 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> Dear god!!


 
I agree - the lack of common courtesy and manners is appalling... it is a shame that the moderators had to be involved because the OP didn't have the decency to correct the post


----------



## rich p (5 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> I agree - the lack of common courtesy and manners is appalling... it is a shame that the moderators had to be involved because the OP didn't have the decency to correct the post


...and with one bound he was free! Phew, your integrity is saved!


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> ...and with one bound he was free! Phew, your integrity is saved!


 
Yep - some of us have higher standards than others, shame really that it took the moderators to bring your post up to a standard that is acceptable


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Jan 2013)

BJH said:


> The point here is why should Sky accept having to be totally open to PK - great for him if he can get this as it puts him right into the front line of for the biggest stories from the biggest team.
> 
> All I read from his accusation is that Sky won the TDF and could use a number of riders to control the race.
> 
> ...


 

TUEs can be difficult as athletes as a whole and endurance athletes in particular can have "abnormal" results in medical tests making diagnosis difficult and more complicated

Asthma is a classic case, with a much higher incidence in athletes (25% of athletes at Beijing showed symptoms of being asthmatic, compared to about 8% in the general public.) The classic tests of lung volume are unhelpful as this is usually greater than the normal values in these athletes, soother tests need to be used.

Although the standardised lists of banned substances are specific, some countries allow therapeutic drugs to be proscribed under exemption that others do not.

Indurain's "failed test" in 1994 was for an inhaler that was banned in France at the time, and listed by the UCI at the time, Salbutamol was however allowed for use by asthmatics under an exemption, but an outright ban exixted in France where the race was held.

The test was therefore positive for a banned substance in France, but allowed under a TUE by the UCI and hence there was no sanction for the offence.

(Of course there is also the dispute over whether the Salbutamol TUE was backdated)

[/url][/s]


----------



## Boris Bajic (5 Jan 2013)

I would not be at all surprised if there was chemical hanky-panky at Sky Pro-Cycling.

It would sadden me, but it would not be the end of the world and would not detract from the sport.

I loved the whole, barmy pro-cycling caravan of excess in the 90s and (like many others) I suspected it was full of funny substances. I'd say I knew it, but I didn't. I suspected it was and I believed it was.

I enjoyed the spectacle nonetheless. Pantani and other 'bad boys' remain heroes to me. I have an enormous regard for the exploits of LA, but he was never someone I saw in the same heroic glow that I got from Pantani. Ekimov was heroic to me, but not LA.

These words may seem absurd in the light of recent proofs, but many of us never needed the proof. These guys were doing the impossible, day after day after day. 

Many people (I among them) chose to see Cadel as clean, likewise Ti-Blan, Bradley, Boardman, Voigt, Spartacus.... We liked these riders and it suited our outlook. But really?

I wouldn't bet my house on anything, but I would scarcely raise an eyebrow if it turned out that Sky were sailing close to the wind (or closer) on PEDs.

And I'd still count BW as a hero.


----------



## rich p (5 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> .
> 
> Although the standardised lists of banned substances are specific, some countries allow therapeutic drugs to be proscribed under exemption that others do not.
> 
> ...


 
They allow drugs to be proscribed? What on earth does that mean?


----------



## Aperitif (5 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> They allow drugs to be proscribed? What on earth does that mean?


I went to the doctors the other day and he gave me a proscription for the drugs he told me I couldn't have. Tomorrow, I'll be tackling the proscriptic crossword in The Observer. Don't quote me on that, and if you do, mate,


> do it proper, Lee


.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> They allow drugs to be proscribed? What on earth does that mean?


 
Denounce or condemn

Edited - I have expanded the explanation


Lets make this as simple as I can for you........... I can only apologise if I have used a word you don't understand or is too complcated

In Country A the drug on the UCi / IOC banned list is allowed to be used (in this case Salbutamol) under a Therapeutic Use Exemption

In Country B they have a separate regulation which additionally bans the same drug (in this case Salbutamol) totally

This can then be described as having been "banned", "forbidden", "outlawed", "condemned", "unlawful" or "*proscribed*"

In the case above the incident mentioned above the TUE (see note above about backdating) was not recognised because the drug was *proscribed* under French regulations.
[media]


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (5 Jan 2013)

Can I have an "E" please Carol.

Oh wait...


----------



## rich p (5 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Denounce or condemn.


So, some authorities allow drugs to be banned.
Cheers, thanks for clearing that one up


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> So, some authorities allow drugs to be banned.
> Cheers, thanks for clearing that one up


 

Not quite, the authorities list banned substances, but an individual country or organisation has been able to extend this list incuding

As you still appear to be having difficulty I have expanded the explanation for you so you can see the context, and help you see why he use of a TUE is not as simple as it looks. It can be valid to race in one event but not in another simply by crossing a border


----------



## rich p (5 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Not quite, the authorities list banned substances, but an individual country or organisation has been able to extend this list incuding
> 
> As you still appear to be having difficulty I have expanded the explanation for you so you can see the context, and help you see why he use of a TUE is not as simple as it looks. It can be valid to race in one event but not in another simply by crossing a border


Oh, never mind old bean. 
Whoooooooosh!


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Jan 2013)

rich p said:


> Oh, never mind old bean.
> Whoooooooosh!


 
Is it still too complex then?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (5 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> This can then be described as having been "banned", "forbidden", "outlawed", "condemned", "unlawful" or "*proscribed*"


Proscribed: Forbid, denouce/condemn.

How do you then


> some countries allow therapeutic drugs to be *proscribed under exemption* that others do not.


Proscribe something under exemption? How does a country,with it's sporting federations signed to the WADA code (UKAD for example) do that exactly?

Does WADA publish different drug listings for each country?

ps: somewhat irrelevant as the 2011 WADA list explicitly allowed Salbutamol in 1600mg doses over 24hrs.


----------



## Firestorm (5 Jan 2013)

Sky, or BW for that matter, commenting on doping will get criticism whatever they do.
No comment and some will say they have something to hide, issue statements and the old phrase about "doth protest too much" will get rolled out.
If someone wants to say something, hidden agenda or not, they will find something to put up as evidence.
Sky PR will have their work cut out in juggling this one now that they are at the top and the longer they stay there the harder it will be, whether its convincing the doubters or hiding the truth....


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Jan 2013)

T.M.H.N.E.T said:


> Proscribed: Forbid, denouce/condemn.
> 
> How do you then
> 
> ...


 
How is the 2011 list relevant to an event in 1994?


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (5 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> How is the 2011 list relevant to an event in 1994?


How is a positive test in 1994 relative to Kimmage and SKY in 2012/13??

The French Sports Ministry had banned salbutamol, but the IOC and UCI hadn't. The latter two allowed it under a TUE. The FSM(whatever that is made up of or entails) did absolutely zero about it, either because they couldn't be arsed,were told not to or simply couldn't. 

If they had have taken action, your point may actually have some weight. They didn't so it doesn't.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Jan 2013)

At the time of the incident France had a total ban on Salbutamol in addition to the official UCI list hence the positive test, but no sanction by the UCI

By what mechanism they managed that is difficult to ascertain at this distance in time.

However the WADA was not around at that stage, and did not appear on the scene until 2004 when the first harmonisation occurs. Different sporting bodies in different countries atthis point had different lists so a drug used under an exemption such as a TUE in one country could still be proscribed across the border




> In 2004, the World Anti-Doping Code was implemented by sports organizations prior to the Olympic Games in Athens, Greece, harmonizing the rules and regulations governing anti-doping across all sports and all countries for the first time. More than 600 sports organizations (international sports federations, national anti-doping organizations, International Olympic Committee, International Paralympic Committee, a number of professional leagues in various countries of the world, etc.) have adopted the Code to date.
> Following an extensive consultation period, revisions to the World Anti-Doping Code were unanimously adopted at the Third World Conference on Doping in Sport in November 2007 to incorporate the experience gained from the enforcement of the initial Code. These revisions, which include a number of measures strengthening the global fight against doping in sport, took effect on 1 January 2009.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Jan 2013)

Firestorm said:


> Sky, or BW for that matter, commenting on doping will get criticism whatever they do.
> No comment and some will say they have something to hide, issue statements and the old phrase about "doth protest too much" will get rolled out.
> If someone wants to say something, hidden agenda or not, they will find something to put up as evidence.
> Sky PR will have their work cut out in juggling this one now that they are at the top and the longer they stay there the harder it will be, whether its convincing the doubters or hiding the truth....


 

Slightly OT, but the 2013 list has (despite much discussion last year) not included Nicotine - it is however on the "monitoring list"

WIggins is an occasional smoker, and would have been affected by the ban


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (5 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> At the time of the incident France had a total ban on Salbutamol in addition to the official UCI list hence the positive test, but no sanction by the UCI
> 
> By what mechanism they managed that is difficult to ascertain at this distance in time.
> 
> However the WADA was not around at that stage, and did not appear on the scene until 2004 when the first harmonisation occurs. Different sporting bodies in different countries atthis point had different lists so a drug used under an exemption such as a TUE in one country could still be proscribed across the border


Despite being banned,causing a positive test and being allowed by IOC/UCI under TUE. Indurain still won the '94 Tour De France, a tour of the the country that had locally banned the drug.

If there were legal proceedings brought forward in France it would be different. You're clutching at straws by using a flawed example.

So the case of Migual Indurain in 1994, makes zero difference to Kimmage vs SKY or Kimmage vs Armstrong.


----------



## ufkacbln (5 Jan 2013)

So you are saying that no member of Sky racing in 1994 and that era is relevant?


Many of the team staff were contemporaries of Indurain and raced in the era where these rules were more confused

If you could be clearer as to the dates you consider relevant to Sky it would be helpful so we can then dismiss the history of Sean Yates and others as well


----------



## T.M.H.N.E.T (5 Jan 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> So you are saying that no member of Sky before 2004 is irrelevant?


No I said. _"So the case of *Miguel Indurain in 1994*, makes zero difference to Kimmage vs SKY or Kimmage vs Armstrong." _



> Many of the team staff were contemporaries of Indurain and raced in the era where these rules were more confused


You could say that about the majority if not all pro teams.



> If you could be clearer as to the dates you consider relevant to Sky it would be helpful so we can then dismiss the history of Sean Yates and others as welll


Perhaps the date that Team Sky claimed TDF victory with Bradley Wiggins. A victory which Kimmage has likened in similarity to LA. He hasn't questioned (that I have seen) Sean Yates, Bobby Jullich or really,anybody else except Dr Leinders. Dr Leinders who as a professional working within sport, is probably until retirement or banning going to continue working within sport. Yes, it's strange that a man who was well centered in Rabobanks allegations was working for SKY. But there is still nothing more than suspicion of any SKY foul play.

Staff(inc retired ex racers) admitting to previous use doesn't to me say anything negative towards SKY either. If anything IMHO those who walked(pushed in Barry's case) deserve a little less condemnation for being honest when put on the firing line, than those who poison peletons and the sport with lies and deception over many years.

At this point he is just sniffing around on a feeling,it's what he does best as a journalist. Sometimes he finds a bone and just has to dig uncontrollably for it.

And just because you'll mention it. I believe Team Sky, their listed team for the 2012TDF,the winner thereof and their current rider lineup are 100% clean. I am a fan of Team Sky and of British Cycling,but I am more than open to accepting that if/when caught or admitted to, that the team or an individual rider(from formation in 2009 onwards) were unclean.

(I am not referring to Sean Yates or ex rider staff)


----------



## Crackle (5 Jan 2013)

Kimmage needs to move his game. For a long time he and others have epitomised the exposing of the drug/epo era, the question is, does he still. The answer is probably still yes, people like Kimmage need to keep the sport honest but his credibility won't last if he just makes statements like you'd find in The Clinic on Cycling News. He really needs a much more credible line of questioning and as Delftse Post said, he needs to become more investigative and back up his musings.

Is Sky honest. Well at the moment I believe so, the numbers seem to back that up but they're guilty of being naive at the very least. You can't make statements about how you train to race, not race to train, how you changed riders cadence, diet, weight, training regime, tactics etc.. You can't take on swimming coaches and not explain how they're expertise overlaps cycling, use personnel previously tainted by association, cuddle up to the UCI with yearly presentations and not expect to attract some disbelief and scepticism because quite honestly we've seen it before and a lot of it is tainted by previous association. None of that makes it invalid but it's painful to see, we need to see some distance from cyclings history and we're not getting it yet, perhaps that's where Kimmage should be concentrating, not just drawing the same habitual parallels.


----------



## Paul.G. (5 Jan 2013)

Kimmage is just another old "has-been" with too much time on his hands and you know what they say about "he who protests loudest" - makes me wonder if he himself has something to hide and somehow trying to exonorate himself by attacking others.

Sad bitter twisted old man in my opinion!


----------



## Crackle (5 Jan 2013)

Paul.G. said:


> Kimmage is just another old "has-been" with too much time on his hands and you know what they say about "he who protests loudest" - makes me wonder if he himself has something to hide and somehow trying to exonorate himself by attacking others.
> 
> Sad bitter twisted old man in my opinion!


 
I may be wrong but that suggests you don't know much about him, particularly about his book, Rough Ride, a seminal piece of cycling literature. One thing we can say is that he doesn't have much to hide. The only thing we haven't seen is his intestines.

Apologies if I've misinterpreted your post.


----------



## Noodley (5 Jan 2013)

Paul.G. said:


> Kimmage is just another old "has-been" with too much time on his hands and you know what they say about "he who protests loudest" - makes me wonder if he himself has something to hide and somehow trying to exonorate himself by attacking others.
> 
> Sad bitter twisted old man in my opinion!


 
That coulda been a direct quote from Armstrong.


----------



## lukesdad (5 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> That coulda been a direct quote from Armstrong.


 Or Noodley


----------



## Herzog (6 Jan 2013)

Paul.G. said:


> Kimmage is just another old "has-been" with too much time on his hands and you know what they say about "he who protests loudest" - makes me wonder if he himself has something to hide and somehow trying to exonorate himself by attacking others.
> 
> Sad bitter twisted old man in my opinion!


 
I don't agree with any of the above, but if I'd had my career 'stolen', I would find it hard not to be bitter/twisted etc.


----------



## just jim (6 Jan 2013)

Herzog said:


> I don't agree with any of the above, but if I'd had my career 'stolen', I would find it hard not to be bitter/twisted etc.


Exactly. I don't understand why people have a problem with this. The sport comes first for him.


----------



## alpinecycling (6 Jan 2013)

What irritates me is that Kimmage actually comes out in public to voice his doubts when he seems to be basing it on someone getting quicker and thinner...well sorry but I thought that was what cyclists were supposed to do?
I have just finished reading the Fotheringham authored "My Time".The chapter "In the Firing Line" sets out a very clear Wiggins view on the issue of doping.When someone has done that then surely simple human respect demands that you have very clear grounds before spouting off.Look at Pete Kennaugh's twitter to see what he thought!


----------



## lukesdad (6 Jan 2013)

just jim said:


> Exactly. I don't understand why people have a problem with this. The sport comes first for him.


 I think you'll find PK comes first for PK and allways has done.


----------



## Noodley (6 Jan 2013)

lukesdad said:


> I think you'll find PK comes first for PK and allways has done.


 
Everybody is driven by self-interest.


----------



## lukesdad (6 Jan 2013)

Noodley said:


> Everybody is driven by self-interest.


Some drive harder than others tho' noods.


----------



## lukesdad (6 Jan 2013)

By the way what is that avatar ? Are they driving chariots on audaxes these days


----------



## Noodley (6 Jan 2013)

lukesdad said:


> By the way what is that avatar ? Are they driving chariots on audaxes these days


 
It's my magificent crimson-plumed shiny helmet


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Jan 2013)

He's gone back to school and taken up mountain biking!


----------



## just jim (6 Jan 2013)

lukesdad said:


> I think you'll find PK comes first for PK and allways has done.


 Yeh, thanks for the insight.


----------

