Kimmage on Contador

Page 10 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Digger said:
Still not a fan of spelling that word correctly I see.

Anyway, have you actually read much of Kimmage's work in the last twenty years? Have you read his book and many of his articles?
You realise he has interviewed a number of cyclists including Wiggins, Cavendish, Vaughters, Millar, Lim, VandeVelde, Peiper and Lemond.

You still seem to believe that these governing bodies above actually do a good job. Yet you were the one last week praising the UCI for uncovering Operation Puerto.
You need to address specific examples of Paul's work which show him making accusations 'devoid of proof'. If they are as plentiful as you seem to think, then it will be easy for you.
There are two thing emerging here of late.

#1 - Those who think the UCI is doing a poor job of anti-doping, what is it you want them to do?

They have to follow the rules, or the whole anti-doping process goes right out the window. If you violate the process, you cannot convict anyone. I realize that is frustrating to a lot of people, that jurisprudence takes time - but that is the reality of it.

If the UCI short changes or attempts to circumvent that process, a very REAL, legal process, then there will be ZERO anti-doping convictions. How will that be better for the sport? How will THAT help the anti-doping process?

BTW - I have read Kimmages stuff, which is why I am so critical of his, and others (LeMond, Pound, Walsh, Andreau), and I am well aware that the charges are explosive. I have heard all this stuff justified by 'inside' information, but when legitimate law enforcement agencies check on these leads - they come up empty handed.

At what point do should we bother to demand actual evidence of teh wrong doing being written about?

Again, no one denies that there was, and perhaps still is, a doping problem in cycling.

What is at issue is how to tackle it, and, again, to date, Kimmage, LeMond, and the rest of sensationalists have produced ZERO anti-doping convictions.

They have helped turn the sport in a caludron of accussation and suspicion where the only riders who are assured of being beyond reproach are those who never win a race.

2. I was struck by Joe Papp's response. He is right. The leaks and accussations have to stop. No other sport out there is subjected to this kind of treatment. The sports whose atheletes were caught with Fuentes the first time? Where is that massive hunt for the truth?

I think there is a huge disconnect between a sport that does so much to confront doping and has al its dirty laundry aired publically, and the other sports, just as riddled with doping (if not more so in the abscence of a testing regime like cycling) who are not subjected to defamatory leaks.

Transparancy is important, but it has to come at the fulfillment of the process rather than as sensational leaks to the public. The leaks never contain both sides, and when a conviction is produced, it shoud accompany and explanation as to why it was done.

This is obvious in cases where an athlete tests positive for EPO, but this is not the case when AC tests 'positive' for something that could concieveably by the result of contamination.

Context remains important, and accidental exposure to something should not be treated the same was as Basso or Landis who went out of their way to dope.

However, in the current acrimonious environment, I do not think a reasoned approach is possible.

That is until fans start saying enough with the TMZ, enough with the Law and Order, give me friggin' bike race!

At some point we have to have a system that is strigent enough to catch cheats and one that the fans believe is producing credible race results. Ergo, as per #1, Kimmage, LeMond, Walsh, etc. whose accussations extend so deep are simply not helping. Their concern with anti-doping is commendable, their chosen tactics in confronting it are not - because they do not work and cause more harm than good.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
gree0232 said:
There are two thing emerging here of late.

#1 - Those who think the UCI is doing a poor job of anti-doping, what is it you want them to do?

They have to follow the rules, or the whole anti-doping process goes right out the window.
Have you not read the WADA report from the tour de france? Riders aware of when "random" testing was taken place. Riders not asked for ID so the testers just had to trust they were taking the sample from the person they were meant to. Blood taken and not tested. Alarming lack of blood samples taken during the tour. The UCI do not follow the rules. simple.
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
Cycling has a broad spectrum of "immoral" behaviours that vary from the innocuous to that that is regarded as egregious cheating. And that list does not include the egregious arrogance and bullying that I have observed in at least one of the "Patrons".

Therefore I believe there are few cyclists that are "without fault". There are likely to be a few additional cyclists that do not meet an objective standard of "without fault". However these additional few regard themselves to be without fault.

Therefore there is only a small percentage of the peloton that would meet the concept of "he who is without sin may cast the first stone".

Of this small number, who would then be prepared to cast that "first stone" when faced with the repercussions as evidenced by individuals such as Greg L and Floyd L.

As for NR,

1. he may have a "guilty" conscience for an innocuous infringement OR some PED experimentation sometime in his riding history
2. he may feel that, unlikely as it may be, AC inadvertently ingested Clenbuturol

Me, I believe, on balance of probability, AC transfused and truly sought advantage via PED.

Slight aside: even if you inadvertently use PEDs you have likely obtained a benefit not available to your fellow competitors. I guess this maybe/is the reason underlying the strict liability provisions. There is a significant history of athletes failing drug tests on "Strict liability". There are also a number of athletes that acknowleged their (inadvertent?) error and copped sweet to the penalty.

I also believe that the 1 year penalty recognizes the possibility (no matter how small) of inadvertent Clenbuturol ingestion...

Upshot: I would like N Roche to speak on the matter, at least in considered terms... as would I like others to speak up.

However more important is for the senior stakeholders to speak up. I have no faith in the UCI in general and office holders in particular. I suspect the peloton may have a similar view.

Big OT: addressed in other threads: In spite of all the above, all stakeholders need to support the creation of an environ that supports/compels a PED free peloton :D. Easily said but I know how...NOT!
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
TeamSkyFans said:
Have you not read the WADA report from the tour de france? Riders aware of when "random" testing was taken place. Riders not asked for ID so the testers just had to trust they were taking the sample from the person they were meant to. Blood taken and not tested. Alarming lack of blood samples taken during the tour. The UCI do not follow the rules. simple.
I am aware that the WADA report said that the controls were adaquate but listed areas of improvement.

Such outside analysis is to be lauded not used as a basis of condemnation.

That is how organizations get better, most professions do it.

And look at what you are taking issue with please.

In a race where there are only nine riders on a team and less than 200 altogether, the controllers sometimes did not ask for ID - because they though Alberto Contador was actually Lance Armstrong? I understand there are lesser riders, but it is a small community and nothing in the report indicates that there was ever a false sample given.

Random testing in the tour takes place at certain times - so the riders are not woken in the middle of the night. There was an attempt to introduce random 'mid-night' controls after this report, and the backlash from management and the riders was rather scathing. There must be balance.

And finally, look at what the report is asking for more of?

More blood tests.

More random tests.

Better accountability in the tests.

The UCI is following those recommendations. If last year's controls were adaquate, and the UCI follows the recommendation of WADA (and again brings in WADA observers), then the controls will be that much harder to beat this year .... and the year after that, and the year after that. That is how we make anti-doping AT races better, but the systems of doping, the money, the movement, the administration is another area to target beyond testing - and teh UCI is working with national federations and the police (to the extent that it can) to move those procedures along.

Noticeably absent from the report though?

"Bring in Kimmage and let him teasingly question the intergity and doping status of one of the riders for him not loudly condemning another rider in concert with Kimmage."

Funny how that didn't make the WADA report for some reason?
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
JA.Tri said:
Upshot: I would like N Roche to speak on the matter, at least in considered terms... as would I like others to speak up.
What could Roche possibly know about AC doping? He isn't even on the same team as AC?

Does he need to say publically, maybe he did maybe he did not? How the hell should I know?
 

runninboy

BANNED
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
TeamSkyFans said:
I would love to see contador banned for epo, or transfusions, or whatever else, but banning a rider for a minute amount of a non ped (in that quanitity) that is found in the food chain is NOT a means to an end.
the problem is it is not found in the food chain in the way AC claims.
My family is in the cattle business, i had never heard of Clenbuterol until this year.
All the studies i have found show it is not beneficial for cattle. It is not effective. However there are implants that have the desired effect that are cheaper. legal and do the job far better than Clen.
In addition digging deeper , we find the Clen would not be in the meat itself. Not in theory or in the real world. The cases of Clen that made people sick the people all ate liver. Most of those instances were back in the early 90's.
SO to say it is in the food chainis quite a stretch. No cases of it in the food chain in Spain in the last few years, less than one in ten thousand in all of Europe, none recently in the US either. And of course you would have to find a contaminated animal and consume the liver, not the meat...
 
gree0232 said:
There are two thing emerging here of late.

#1 - Those who think the UCI is doing a poor job of anti-doping, what is it you want them to do?

They have to follow the rules, or the whole anti-doping process goes right out the window. If you violate the process, you cannot convict anyone. I realize that is frustrating to a lot of people, that jurisprudence takes time - but that is the reality of it.

If the UCI short changes or attempts to circumvent that process, a very REAL, legal process, then there will be ZERO anti-doping convictions. How will that be better for the sport? How will THAT help the anti-doping process?

BTW - I have read Kimmages stuff, which is why I am so critical of his, and others (LeMond, Pound, Walsh, Andreau), and I am well aware that the charges are explosive. I have heard all this stuff justified by 'inside' information, but when legitimate law enforcement agencies check on these leads - they come up empty handed.

At what point do should we bother to demand actual evidence of teh wrong doing being written about?

Again, no one denies that there was, and perhaps still is, a doping problem in cycling.

What is at issue is how to tackle it, and, again, to date, Kimmage, LeMond, and the rest of sensationalists have produced ZERO anti-doping convictions.

They have helped turn the sport in a caludron of accussation and suspicion where the only riders who are assured of being beyond reproach are those who never win a race.

2. I was struck by Joe Papp's response. He is right. The leaks and accussations have to stop. No other sport out there is subjected to this kind of treatment. The sports whose atheletes were caught with Fuentes the first time? Where is that massive hunt for the truth?

I think there is a huge disconnect between a sport that does so much to confront doping and has al its dirty laundry aired publically, and the other sports, just as riddled with doping (if not more so in the abscence of a testing regime like cycling) who are not subjected to defamatory leaks.

Transparancy is important, but it has to come at the fulfillment of the process rather than as sensational leaks to the public. The leaks never contain both sides, and when a conviction is produced, it shoud accompany and explanation as to why it was done.

This is obvious in cases where an athlete tests positive for EPO, but this is not the case when AC tests 'positive' for something that could concieveably by the result of contamination.

Context remains important, and accidental exposure to something should not be treated the same was as Basso or Landis who went out of their way to dope.

However, in the current acrimonious environment, I do not think a reasoned approach is possible.

That is until fans start saying enough with the TMZ, enough with the Law and Order, give me friggin' bike race!

At some point we have to have a system that is strigent enough to catch cheats and one that the fans believe is producing credible race results. Ergo, as per #1, Kimmage, LeMond, Walsh, etc. whose accussations extend so deep are simply not helping. Their concern with anti-doping is commendable, their chosen tactics in confronting it are not - because they do not work and cause more harm than good.
Ignore................so long troll.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Everyone do not respond to Gree at the moment, I need to remove his posts, so do continue that debate any further
 
Mar 19, 2009
2,811
0
0
If the low dosage would be explained by blood doping, a 2 year ban would be inappropriate. 2 seperate offences, life ban. I will repeat this myself until people start echoing it.
I hope in the appeal they somehow find a way to allow for the plasticizers to be brought into the discussion.
The food chain effect needs to be looked at also.
At best give AC an already discounted 2 year ban, starting when the appeal is ruled upon, when he accepts to admit taking the clen.
No-one after him should be let off with a one-year ban until we've had good research showing the food chain effect.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
runninboy said:
the problem is it is not found in the food chain in the way AC claims.
My family is in the cattle business, i had never heard of Clenbuterol until this year.
All the studies i have found show it is not beneficial for cattle. It is not effective. However there are implants that have the desired effect that are cheaper. legal and do the job far better than Clen.
In addition digging deeper , we find the Clen would not be in the meat itself. Not in theory or in the real world. The cases of Clen that made people sick the people all ate liver. Most of those instances were back in the early 90's.
SO to say it is in the food chainis quite a stretch. No cases of it in the food chain in Spain in the last few years, less than one in ten thousand in all of Europe, none recently in the US either. And of course you would have to find a contaminated animal and consume the liver, not the meat...
i have read some great and considered posts by you, but this one reveals inordinate amount of ignorance about clenbuterol. this forum alone not only discussed everything you got wrong but also listed the studies and the sources you somehow missed :rolleyes:
 
Digger said:
Joe according to this 'logic', it's ok to dope with certain products at certain times in the year.
Just to be clear, that's not what I'm saying. My contention is that it's another in a string of hollow victories obtained with a win-at-all-costs attitude that completely disregards the same standards of propriety for labs that the athletes are required to uphold - or be sanctioned for not meeting.

Thanks tho for the follow-up.
 
NashbarShorts said:
Speaking from experience???



Sorry, but I gotta call nonsense when I hear it. Pro cyclists have no problem dropping their drawers and peeing in a cup in full view of a stranger, but when we ask you guys for a DNA sample to test against confiscated blood bags, etc.....OMG suddenly its all about human rights.

You, Bettini, and all the other hosers who have made this argument can go flick yourselves. Go stand in front of a tank in Tianamen Square or something...
What's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander.

Paint doping as being a moral outrage, and by extension, unethical behavior by another actor in the same drama should be equally outrageous.

Oh - and BTW: I chose to do my pro-democracy work not in China, but closer to home in Cuba.
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
hrotha said:
About the lab leaking the positive... How would they know their samples belonged to Contador? Wouldn't the UCI be the only ones who knew which code corresponded to every rider?
Has anyone got an answer to this one?

Of course whoever the UCI informed that Contador's sample had tested positive would also have known. But the lab itself?
 
joe_papp said:
Just to be clear, that's not what I'm saying. My contention is that it's another in a string of hollow victories obtained with a win-at-all-costs attitude that completely disregards the same standards of propriety for labs that the athletes are required to uphold - or be sanctioned for not meeting.

Thanks tho for the follow-up.
But Joe the athletes are not upholding any standards.

Secondly, I'll take the clen positive as better than nothing. Him suspended is better than him racing.
And it's not a win at all cost, because positive thresholds are nonsensically in favour of the athlete.
 

runninboy

BANNED
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
python said:
i have read some great and considered posts by you, but this one reveals inordinate amount of ignorance about clenbuterol. this forum alone not only discussed everything you got wrong but also listed the studies and the sources you somehow missed :rolleyes:

Ok i should have been a little more specific and yes i made a mistake about the meat vs liver. While at the time the story broke i googled Clen i found page after page of references to liver consumption only. Now repeating the process i found a reference to non liver consumption in the mid 90's . My bad.
However the main point of my response was it does not make sense, when there are easier, cheaper, more effective and legal ways of getting the same results or better. I think there are 5-7 approved low hormone ear implants for example. When I went through some of the studies on Clenbuterol the problem with the beta antagonists is they aren't even effective in all breeds or in all studies.
The response in October on cattle websites was very mocking toward the use of CB, like Spanish cattle ranchers were a bunch of hicks who didn't know anything about beef production. Sort of like "Clenbuterol? you're kidding me. we haven't had anyone try that crap in 15 years. Maybe step into the 21st century." So they used it as a way to promote the superiority of US raised cattle. But the truth is, it was not an effective drug and many superior legal alternatives have been found in the last decade or two.
By and large the only way clenbuterol was used was to medicate sick cattle.Or for limited mobility animals such as veal in a crate. those types of animals had a hard time putting on muscle and had layers of fat from lack
of exercise. Same with the show animals. Show animals are raised in a shorter time period and fed what would normally be an uneconomical amount of feed. It is easy for them to get pockets of fat, which they are then down graded for. If you can eliminate the fat and replace it with muscle your animal will score higher. The lack of marbling and the toughness of the meat typical with Clen use will not be apparent unless the show also includes carcass judging.

Again Spain has tested tens of thousands of cattle recently and none were positive. The reason is there are more effective and legal ways to achieve the result
so bottom line it is not in the food chain of AC.
 
Mar 10, 2009
221
0
0
Skandar Akbar said:
They will not act ****ed because it brings more heat on them. By supporting AC Schleck does not have to answer how, if he was clean, could he arguably ride stronger than AC.
Neither of the Schlecks are "clean."--whatever clean means in today's sports. And neither is Wiggens, Millar, Vandeveld, Horner or Spartacus and most of the other Name riders; becasue if they didn't dope they would not be Name riders. Ask Landis.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts