So, some authorities allow drugs to be banned.
Cheers, thanks for clearing that one up
Paul Kimmage suspicious of Sky
- Thread starter martint235
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Cheers, thanks for clearing that one up
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
Oh, never mind old bean.
Whoooooooosh!
Is it still too complex then?
T.M.H.N.E.T
Rainbows aren't just for world champions
- Location
- Northern Ireland
Proscribed: Forbid, denouce/condemn.
How do you then
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
Veteran
- Location
- Southend on Sea
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....
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....
How is the 2011 list relevant to an event in 1994?
T.M.H.N.E.T
Rainbows aren't just for world champions
- Location
- Northern Ireland
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.
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
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
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
Rainbows aren't just for world champions
- Location
- Northern Ireland
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.
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
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
Rainbows aren't just for world champions
- Location
- Northern Ireland
No I said. "So the case of Miguel Indurain in 1994, makes zero difference to Kimmage vs SKY or Kimmage vs Armstrong."
You could say that about the majority if not all pro teams.
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)
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.
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.
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!
Sad bitter twisted old man in my opinion!
