There are two thing emerging here of late.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.
#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.