Kimmage on Contador

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Feb 21, 2010
1,007
0
0
gree0232 said:
I am curious as to why so many people are demanding that 'cyclists' come forward to denounce AC and other cyclists?
It becomes a question of leadership and one of changing the culture of cycling from one of ignoring and/or tolerating it, to one of addressing it in a forthcoming manner.

What would Roche, for example, know about the specifics of AC doping? He is not on the same team, and does not share management, etc. with AC. What exactly is he supposed to denounce?
Your (deliberate?) red herring here is a fail. He must denounce the fact that the winner of the biggest race just came positive. When Landis came positive, there were scores who hammered the guy. Now, we even have Schleck in a statement of tacit support climaing he still considers AC the "true" winner. Joke.

What would Andy Schleck know about the specifics of AC doping? Does the fact that he finished second to AC somehow mean he is knowledgable about the specifics of AC's PED use?
Well, for one he has a familial connection with Fuentes, a la Frank, plus Basso and the lot of Liberty Segueros. Coming second in a GT should also be reasonable cause for understanding doping when you brother, DS, former team leader (Basso), and many others have direct ties to or confessions of doping.

If an office mate in your office pops hot for cocaine, are you also guilty of using cocaine UNLESS you immediately denounce him?
Where do you work? Nevertheless, this is not an apples to apples comparison, save you frequent the same clubs, hang in the same crowd and work in an industry rife with cocaine use. Though, guilt by association is a cliche because it often works out that way.

Paul Kimmage is a zealot. He may be right, but there is no PROFESSIONAL agency of person in the world that runs around not just taking an extreme position on a doping case - but expanding a case for one rider, one being held accountable by the system mind you, and using that as a basis to condemn the entirelty of a sport.
So he is right but you still find a reason to criticize him instead of supporting him? Talk about ignoring the truth! I think you are ill informed as to the level at which Mr. Kimmage has access to and understand the inner working of professional cycling (aka, how the sausage is made). I sense he operates from such an advanced position of knowledge, based on 1st hand accounts and direct experience that you would retract this point if you knew the truth. Mr. Kimmage has assembled a broad brush and wields it with skill and only when he has justifications.

I wonder when zealots like Paul Kimmage will realize that with:

1. Police raids in Spain, France, Austria, Italy, and the US breaking up actual dope rings ....

2. An invasive test policy, the most stringent in the world ....

3. And the fact that cyclists are getting caught ....
You've lost your train of thought here. No one can follow your disjointed mess of the English language.

I would say that the reality of the sport is that PED problem is getting better in cycling, not worse. Acerbic, evidenceless, accussations against riders - like, "Roche is doped because he did not wade in with accussations and denunciations like our resident zealot" is not proof of drug use (not by ANY standard ANYWHERE) but a distinct lack of professionalism.
First, I am unsure how you can say the PED problem is getting better. The numbers are up, GT winners (and the domestiques) are (still) being nailed, and the efforts to curb blood doping are falling flat (bio-passport failures). As well, Kimmage did say nothing of the sort regarding Roche. Show me a link where even a loose paraphrase exists in reality. Kimmages' professionalism is not at issue, the sport is.

AC was just found guilty for a trace amount of clen, one so small that it could not possibly have had a performance enhacing effect, and zealots like Kimmage think nothing has changed since the pre-Festina days?
The notion that iy had no effect is misguided. It had clear effect back in May (or thereabouts) when he was using Clen to lose weight and load the miles. The blood bag still had the traces of clen but the previous benefit had already been gained. Don't be so linear in your naivety. Evin if you doubt this theory, sit tight, they will have it soon for use against Lance.

Why do we give the zealots, the rabid accussers, access to our sport?
"Our"? You presume quite a bit of ownership. What is your precise investment?

Your presumption of zealotry illustrates your utter lack of understanding of Mr. Kimmages's access to and understanding of doping at the highest and most sophisticated levels in this sport. He has "earned" the right to ask the tough questions of this magnitude and your ignorance on the topic is quite revealing. Quite.

Does anyone really think that running around accussing people of doping is what will clean up doping?
No. If you could be specific, rather than pose a grossly irresponsible and sweeping question, maybe you'd get a deatiled answer.

Props to CONI, the Guardi Civil, the Gendarme, the testers, and agencies for making PED use in cycling more difficult. Acerbic amateurs with nothing more than accussations and scathing commentary are unhelpful at best .... as they are in any situation.
Interesting way to close out your disjointed rant.

On one hand you praise them here, then criticize them for "catching" AC... Well, which is it? AC tested positive for a non-threshold substance for which ther is no accommodation for a reduced sanction. He id not "prove" a definitive source of food contamination, nor did he explain the half-life degradation theory necessary to fully confirm a contamination case. Have you had access to or read all these details? If not, how can you comment?

Also, don't lose sight of the fact that it was Landis' direct information that led to the subpoena and Gj testimonies of almost a dozen former USPS riders, as well as Popovych being subpoenaed and his home subsequently raided in Italy. It was Landis' information that has led to an ongoing push to acquiesce the details of how the USPS team could operate a doping program while keeping their accounts straight for review by thier US sponsor. Is it no wonder why the US Feds went right to the entities that most likely provided the goods that were made for sale on the black market for cash, so the systemic doping programs could continue year in, year out?

One one hand you applaud the bodies who do the work to obtain proof, and one the other denounce the athletes and media who direct them as to where to go investigate.... Dilemma much????? This is known as ignorance of the facts of the situation or an utter lack of intellect and deductive reasoning.

You create a dilemma that has no answer. It takes courage, leadership and integrity for Roche to say he is tired of being disadvantaged by dopers. It takes the ultimate guts for Landis to change course and reveal (like wearing a wire for the US Feds) the ugly truths of how Lance won year after year, and it is this kind of info that will move the sport and the investigations forward towards justice. The media MUST ask the tough questions. If you send an email and ask, you won't get squat.

Remove your selective and arbitrary blinders long enough to view the whole landscape. You might just find what you wish was happening actually is happening.
 
Jan 5, 2011
32
0
0
I understand the argument that other riders should not offer speculation, or engage in repeating rumors, but that is not the case here. AC has been caught with a banned substance in his body, and has been sanctioned by his federation. It would be nice to hear a few riders at least say something indicating they support the sanctioning of riders found guilty of doping, and that they hope that the system works to remove all doped riders from the peloton. But it seems all the top riders are avoiding any such talk, which I find disappointing.

Also, if my company announced that employee bonuses and annual salary increases were canceled due to reduced profitability, and I subsequently found out that several employees were skimming a couple thousand dollars off the books each month, there is no doubt I would raise hell about it. Take money out of my pocket for your own gain and I won't feel at all bad about selling you out. I think that is a better analogy than walking off with a box of pens.
 
Oct 25, 2009
344
0
0
Leaving aside the merits of Roche or anyone else speaking out I suspect no one is speaking out at this time because (1) few think the Spanish federation's decision was anything other than political or would otherwise add to our knowledge on guilt, (2) everyone thinks the CAS will ultimately decide and (3) this case is not straight forward (with process concerns going beyond it). They have either spoken out already (not exactly many mainly due to (3)) or they will wait for the CAS.

NB. I am not sure I would want to be a friend or countryman of Paul ("...et tu Brute") Kimmage - there are a few others to pick on in- and outside the peleton other than Nic. A touch of the bully there.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
You realize Kimmage was a former Pro and he is presently a Sports Journalist so he knows what he is talking about and has the right to ask.
Let's be realistic about this. Kimmage was a professional rider way before things got out of hand in the doping biz. As much as "Rough ride" helped to expose what was happening THEN, what we are dealing with now is a whole new ballgame that I'm sure even he could not have envisioned when he first wrote the book.

As much as I enjoy Kimmage he is taking a false track here. Yes, he is free to condemn Contador to the doping trash heap but he, more than anyone else, should realize that calling for Contador's head will solve nothing for two reasons-

1) The clenbutarol amount was minuscule and in no way of any performance enhancing benefit. A two-year ban and the stripping of his Tour title over something like this is a gross overreaction.

2) What needs to be proven is the possible instance of blood doping. If it could be proven that he blood doped, then the possibility exists to dismantle the system that made it possible for Contador to dope in the first place. This is what will lead to cleaner cycling, not the banishment of any one particular rider.

If you suspend him, the real players behind the scenes will just go off to work for someone else and nothing has been solved.

Does anyone else out there get this?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Berzin said:
Let's be realistic about this. Kimmage was a professional rider way before things got out of hand in the doping biz. As much as "Rough ride" helped to expose what was happening THEN, what we are dealing with now is a whole new ballgame that I'm sure even he could not have envisioned when he first wrote the book.

As much as I enjoy Kimmage he is taking a false track here. Yes, he is free to condemn Contador to the doping trash heap but he, more than anyone else, should realize that calling for Contador's head will solve nothing for two reasons-

1) The clenbutarol amount was minuscule and in no way of any performance enhancing benefit. A two-year ban and the stripping of his Tour title over something like this is a gross overreaction.

2) What needs to be proven is the possible instance of blood doping. If it could be proven that he blood doped, then the possibility exists to dismantle the system that made it possible for Contador to dope in the first place. This is what will lead to cleaner cycling, not the banishment of any one particular rider.

If you suspend him, the real players behind the scenes will just go off to work for someone else and nothing has been solved.

Does anyone else out there get this?
Kimmage was asked to give his opinion on Contador. He outlined the guys history of association with doping before he tested positive for Clen and rightly in my opinion called Contador a spade.

Do you believe that Clen got into his system via a Spanish steak?

I think Kimmage is saying that the sport is going nowhere fast and this is because of the doping and that if the riders dont speak up that they cant complain about the situation and if they profess to love their sport, as Roche constantly did in his TdF diaries in an Irish national newspaper then they got to stand up and profess their hatred of dopers and doping.

I imagine Kimmage has remained in contact with lots of people in pro cycling as lots would have silently applauded his efforts, but could not risk their jobs.
 
Sorry I know this is old news, but I hadn't really watched this before and since we're on the Kimmage topic.

The confidence this man has in telling all his bold faced lies is uncanny. The look of total submission from the other riders before the Boss was just special. And the puerile giggles from the pundits in the audience at the end was just pathetic.

Though the comments on Flandis take the cake.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI&feature=related
 
Oct 25, 2009
344
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Kimmage was asked to give his opinion on Contador. He outlined the guys history of association with doping before he tested positive for Clen and rightly in my opinion called Contador a spade.

Do you believe that Clen got into his system via a Spanish steak?

I think Kimmage is saying that the sport is going nowhere fast and this is because of the doping and that if the riders dont speak up that they cant complain about the situation and if they profess to love their sport, as Roche constantly did in his TdF diaries in an Irish national newspaper then they got to stand up and profess their hatred of dopers and doping.

I imagine Kimmage has remained in contact with lots of people in pro cycling as lots would have silently applauded his efforts, but could not risk their jobs.
Kimmage should be a first port of call for anyone wanting to unload (as long as they trust his ethics or that he will not inadvertently reveal his source) i.e. he should know far more than most and I am sure he does -- but has to avoid getting too emotional and/or personal if he is to get the necessary level of trust.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Nearly said:
Kimmage should be a first port of call for anyone wanting to unload (as long as they trust his ethics or that he will not inadvertently reveal his source) i.e. he should know far more than most and I am sure he does -- but has to avoid getting too emotional and/or personal if he is to get the necessary level of trust.
he called out a professional cyclist who is also writing for a national newspaper. i bet he wouldn't have mentioned Roche if Roche was not a columnist.

I am glad to see a journalist being passionate for the truth, about time and we need more of it especially in subject matter like sport with regards to cheating and doping.
 
Dec 18, 2009
451
0
0
Nearly said:
Kimmage should be a first port of call for anyone wanting to unload (as long as they trust his ethics or that he will not inadvertently reveal his source) i.e. he should know far more than most and I am sure he does -- but has to avoid getting too emotional and/or personal if he is to get the necessary level of trust.
He's clearly passionate about the sport and i particularly like the idea of him running the UCI.

The reason very few of these pro's say anything about proven dopers is because virtually all have transgressed the doping laws at some point and to do that would have utilised the knowledge of someone else in the pro ranks or DS or doc and then run the risk of being 'outed' themselves.
 
Francois the Postman said:
It is one thing to have guts to speak out when it doesn't put your own livelihood on the line (arguably, it improves it). It is another thing to insist that others, who will risk their livelihood, should stick their neck out for your fight. Even if that is one for the greater good.

I have never been a fan of making other people risk far bigger things than I am putting on the line.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that Kimmage should stop saying what he is targeting just now, or that we should simply accept things and roll over.

But my main problem remains that if it is correct that dope is so engrained in the sport that the gatekeepers are complicit, it is not totally fair to say "good riddance" to sheep who still need to feed from the field they are put in.

I too feel that this is a/the chance for riders to force a change if they have the guts to do so. But it is very easy for me to insist that others should be heroic to a level I don't need to be, as an outsider. I genuinely struggle to hold what is going on just now against individual riders.

If a rider has kept stumm about dope, kept his head down, didn't go for public theatrics, just got on with earning money the only way you can earn what your natural ability would roughly make you if there was a clean environment.... "good riddance?".

That is too strong for me. Honestly. I don't condone it, but I can't get myself to be that black and white either. Black and white is easy for me. For riders, it ain't.

Those that do pick white regardless. Heroes. They also pay the price. And they pay it up front. Warts and all.

Cycling as it is now and has been for a long time? It is a rock and a hard place.

Top gatekeepers however, they have the soft comfy place. They have genuine control over the place they are in, and the place that they create for others. For me it is a bit less about the riders, and more about the real instruments behind the institutionalisation. If there is genuine guilt: that's where it is.

That's where that "good riddance" is genuinely a wholly-deserved kick out of the door. They have a real choice in all of this, as their entire livelihood is based on the skills of others. For Contador?

Wholly or partly I think. And since he appears to have oodles of base talent, and doesn't sit on any doping high horse but just got on with it, I'm probably leaning more towards partly than wholly, to be frank.

Now if the majority is clean and the dopers we get are indeed the few rotten apples, I will eat all the humble pie in the world, and "good riddance" to the few spoiling it for the others is totally in place.

But if folk have only one realistic option when they get their talent to where it ought to take it, and that is to make sure you compete at the level that you should be competing at if doping was no factor....

Let's just say I have less problems with Contador coming back than some/one.

But I hope this is the period that things finally do crumble and take cycling into a brighter future.

I expect that some riders are quite happy with the status quo though. Like someone said here on in another thread, accountants wouldn't probably be keen to get back to a PC-less era. I suspect some of the riders genuinely prefer some drugs to make the suffering a bit more bearable, to make the energy come a bit easier too.

I hope riders find the courage to try to change their own working conditions (and the conditions for those that follow) for the better.

But I have seen enough about people to know that that sort of bravery is far less common than you want it to be, and far less common than folk being brave about issues when it doesn't really put their own bones at risk.

To insist they should, for ultimately mostly me rather than them...... Nah. Sorry.
While this is a nice casuistry, it is one to which I could not willing subscribe and its logical premices are fatally flawed.

Simply because we are talking about professionals who are not only victims of circumstance, but wholesale supporters of the omertà. In this sense such reasoning is also terribly naive (I have raced long enough to bear witness to just how willing many are to dope).

This has been made painfully clear time and time again. The most glaring case in recent memory that the lambs are not so innocent, was how Simeoni was treated by his colleagues after the verbal thrashing he received from Armstrong at the Tour.

Any time the corruption and mafioso mechanisms of a cash cow system is faught from the inside, and this needs to be faught from within to gain any real credibility, which it totally lacks, then men of great courage are required.

So I think Kimmage is right in calling for such men, if they exist, to come forward. Because the other alternative means merely supporting the status quo, or else (if we aren't to be hypocrits) legalize doping. That they don't exist in any great numbers has probably more to do with their being willing participants, than scardy cats.;)

We need more Bassons and Simeonis, Flandises (for whatever reason the come forward to dennounce). There can be no rationalizing out of it, which doesn't fall within the swamp of insipid and cynical excuses we always get.
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
Berzin said:
No you wouldn't...what are you talking about?

Go to your job and start yelling from the rooftops that you don't take office supplies like everyone else, and anyone caught taking pens and post-it packs should get fired and never be allowed to work anywhere ever again.

Then go fetch your turkey melt sandwich from the lounge refrigerator and tell me what it tastes like. If it's not dripping with arsenic you're one lucky man.
That's complete and utter bull - your're being beaten by dopers left right and centre and you keep your mouth shut when asked by a journalist. No one bar Bassons has had the balls to say it, and this is one of the reasons the sport is in the sh**. They're all buddy buddy with each other and none have courage or conviction to call the cheats out.
 
rhubroma said:
Sorry I know this is old news, but I hadn't really watched this before and since we're on the Kimmage topic.

The confidence this man has in telling all his bold faced lies is uncanny. The look of total submission from the other riders before the Boss was just special. And the puerile giggles from the pundits in the audience at the end was just pathetic.

Though the comments on Flandis take the cake.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI&feature=related
Watch it again. But this time watch the faces of Hincapie & Levi. If guilt had a look thats it!
 
rhubroma said:
We need more Bassons and Simeonis, Flandises (for whatever reason the come forward to dennounce). There can be no rationalizing out of it, which doesn't fall within the swamp of insipid and cynical excuses we always get.
The "insiders" you say we need more of will not speak out, simply because they will have the career trajectories of Simeoni, Bassons and Landis to use as a template.

When Lemond spoke out against Armstrong, the vitriol from the Armstrong Teabagger Brigade was absolutely vicious. I clearly recall reading the stuff people were posting on his site (when he had one, the one that was affiliated with Trek bicycles at the time) and it was vomit-inducing.

Bassons, Simeoni and Landis were all ridiculed into irrelevancy. None of the three had the success in their careers to withstand the onslaught they received like Lemond does. Landis' only saving grace is that the Feds decided to investigate. If not, he would have wound up living in a van down by the river, if he's not already.

So the notion that cycling will clean up if more riders step up is unrealistic.


Digger said:
That's complete and utter bull - your're being beaten by dopers left right and centre and you keep your mouth shut when asked by a journalist. No one bar Bassons has had the balls to say it, and this is one of the reasons the sport is in the sh**. They're all buddy buddy with each other and none have courage or conviction to call the cheats out.
The reason the sport is where it is is because people like Ferarri continue to work with riders. Then we have Del Moral and Fuentes in Spain. We have Bruyneel and Riis at the helm of a team, and Manolo Saiz threatening to make a comeback.

Pull yourself away from your self-righteous rant and dare to see the big picture. Sean Yates got a job in cycling after retiring as a racer, and his prodigious ingestion of HgH was legendary in the peloton. I've heard rumors of Hincapie going back as far as his amateur days. Problem is, these guys are the nice guys of the sport. We must let them keep on lying so they can continue to make a living in the sport. When the reality is, people like them live to poison it with their silence.


thehog said:
Watch it again. But this time watch the faces of Hincapie & Levi. If guilt had a look thats it!
I think people overestimate the level of guilt amongst these riders. I truly feel the whole doping issue for them is a problem if one gets caught. Nice guys dope too, you know. It's not just the riders we collectively dislike. The ones we like do it too, and feel just as much remorse as the ones who lie about it.
 
Berzin said:
The "insiders" you say we need more of will not speak out, simply because they will have the career trajectories of Simeoni, Bassons and Landis to use as a template.

When Lemond spoke out against Armstrong, the vitriol from the Armstrong Teabagger Brigade was absolutely vicious. I clearly recall reading the stuff people were posting on his site (when he had one, the one that was affiliated with Trek bicycles at the time) and it was vomit-inducing.

Bassons, Simeoni and Landis were all ridiculed into irrelevancy. None of the three had the success in their careers to withstand the onslaught they received like Lemond does. Landis' only saving grace is that the Feds decided to investigate. If not, he would have wound up living in a van down by the river, if he's not already.

So the notion that cycling will clean up if more riders step up is unrealistic.
Oh I don't disaggree with any of this, if it wasn't already clear from my previous comments. Need vs reality are two mutually exclusive aspects in our case, unfortunately.

But I also gave the options: either we don't ask for others to come forward and so we protect the omertà, or we do even given all the illusions we create by being consistent with our anti-doping sentiments. Or we simply give up legalize doping.

Which option seems the most agreeable to you?

But forced to make the choice between 1 and 3, I wouldn't hesitate to pick the latter. If only because I despize the hypocrisy of the current system and the cycnicism and arrogance of men like Armstrong.
 
Berzin said:
The "insiders" you say we need more of will not speak out, simply because they will have the career trajectories of Simeoni, Bassons and Landis to use as a template.

When Lemond spoke out against Armstrong, the vitriol from the Armstrong Teabagger Brigade was absolutely vicious. I clearly recall reading the stuff people were posting on his site (when he had one, the one that was affiliated with Trek bicycles at the time) and it was vomit-inducing.

Bassons, Simeoni and Landis were all ridiculed into irrelevancy. None of the three had the success in their careers to withstand the onslaught they received like Lemond does. Landis' only saving grace is that the Feds decided to investigate. If not, he would have wound up living in a van down by the river, if he's not already.

So the notion that cycling will clean up if more riders step up is unrealistic.




The reason the sport is where it is is because people like Ferarri continue to work with riders. Then we have Del Moral and Fuentes in Spain. We have Bruyneel and Riis at the helm of a team, and Manolo Saiz threatening to make a comeback.

Pull yourself away from your self-righteous rant and dare to see the big picture. Sean Yates got a job in cycling after retiring as a racer, and his prodigious ingestion of HgH was legendary in the peloton. I've heard rumors of Hincapie going back as far as his amateur days. Problem is, these guys are the nice guys of the sport. We must let them keep on lying so they can continue to make a living in the sport. When the reality is, people like them live to poison it with their silence.




I think people overestimate the level of guilt amongst these riders. I truly feel the whole doping issue for them is a problem if one gets caught. Nice guys dope too, you know. It's not just the riders we collectively dislike. The ones we like do it too, and feel just as much remorse as the ones who lie about it.
The reason they're seen as "nice guys" is because they dope and don't cause problems. That's why we say they're "nice". There not really very nice people. That's the torment Tyler lives. He realized he's rotten to the core and a piece of ***. Hard to live with that.

As per the omertà. Armstrong was never ever ever protecting the omerta or his fellow cyclists. He was protecting himself and the Armstrong franchise. Any cyclist who thought Lance was taking care of them was stupid. (yes, Levi?)
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
Benotti69 said:
he called out a professional cyclist who is also writing for a national newspaper. i bet he wouldn't have mentioned Roche if Roche was not a columnist.

I am glad to see a journalist being passionate for the truth, about time and we need more of it especially in subject matter like sport with regards to cheating and doping.
Actually, the main reason is that Roche is Irish, as is Kimmage, as is the interviewer, as was the audience when first aired. The examples he used for an Irish media interview were of Irish cycling, past and present. Context. Nothing personal.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
thehog said:
The reason they're seen as "nice guys" is because they dope and don't cause problems. That's why we say they're "nice". There not really very nice people. That's the torment Tyler lives. He realized he's rotten to the core and a piece of ***. Hard to live with that.

As per the omertà. Armstrong was never ever ever protecting the omerta or his fellow cyclists. He was protecting himself and the Armstrong franchise. Any cyclist who thought Lance was taking care of them was stupid. (yes, Levi?)
i agree as was evidenced by lots of ex team mates testing positive after leaving teamPharmastrong...
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Captain_Cavman said:
Actually, the main reason is that Roche is Irish, as is Kimmage, as is the interviewer, as was the audience when first aired. The examples he used for an Irish media interview were of Irish cycling, past and present. Context. Nothing personal.
Yep i agree, he would probably have named wiggins if he was on bbc:)
 
Oct 25, 2009
344
0
0
Captain_Cavman said:
Actually, the main reason is that Roche is Irish, as is Kimmage, as is the interviewer, as was the audience when first aired. The examples he used for an Irish media interview were of Irish cycling, past and present. Context. Nothing personal.
... and Phillip Deignan and Daniel Martin are not?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Nearly said:
... and Phillip Deignan and Daniel Martin are not?
Roche is better known in Ireland than Deignan or Martin.

Kimmage has called on all riders who are so called anti doping, check the ride pure website, that they cant have it both ways anymore and need to speak out about dopers in the peloton.

Roche is a columnist and Kimmage is calling him out because of his position to speak out and have an impact greater than a cyclist without a link to a national newspaper..
 
Oct 25, 2009
344
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Roche is better known in Ireland than Deignan or Martin.

Kimmage has called on all riders who are so called anti doping, check the ride pure website, that they cant have it both ways anymore and need to speak out about dopers in the peloton.

Roche is a columnist and Kimmage is calling him out because of his position to speak out and have an impact greater than a cyclist without a link to a national newspaper..
Being Bikepure does not impose an obligation to speak out as much as we may want it to.

No doubt his name is Irish cycling royalty but cycling fans will know the other two very well. I was responding to your point that " ....the main reason is that Roche is Irish....". Yes Kimmage is passionate but he seems to take it personally when an Irish cyclist who happens to be a journalist does not share that passion or if he does does not exercise it as he would (at least while he is still a professional cylist and part time columnist).
 
Berzin said:
Go to your job and start yelling from the rooftops that you don't take office supplies like everyone else, and anyone caught taking pens and post-it packs should get fired and never be allowed to work anywhere ever again.
I don't know who started this analogy before you, but co-workers in a company is NOT the same as racing on a team with, and against each other. It's more like finding out a rival stock broker is using insider trading to rip people off, including perhaps you. If he were stripped of his SEC license, would you then speak out against what he did? That's a closer analogy to me than speaking out about co-workers taking paper clips home.

Berzin said:
1) The clenbutarol amount was minuscule and in no way of any performance enhancing benefit. A two-year ban and the stripping of his Tour title over something like this is a gross overreaction.
Do you believe it actually came from contaminated meat??? If not, then how do you think it got into his system?

Having that small amount may not have given him any boost at all during the Tour. But I don't think that's what happened. I think he willfully took it in order to help him shed an extra half-kilo or so a month before the Tour, as a teammate alluded. And if that's the case, did that extra half-kilo translate into :39 seconds in July?

It's my belief that AC was on a program. No, not a 2002 USPS Del Moral "jack-'em to the gills" program, but a program none the less, and clen was part of that program.

Fully agree with you though that blood manipulation is the real culprit. That's where the real problem lies. Spot on agreement there.
 
May 25, 2010
250
0
0
nevada said:
He's clearly passionate about the sport and i particularly like the idea of him running the UCI.

The reason very few of these pro's say anything about proven dopers is because virtually all have transgressed the doping laws at some point and to do that would have utilised the knowledge of someone else in the pro ranks or DS or doc and then run the risk of being 'outed' themselves.
Right on the money. As soon as a rider who has genuinely cleaned up opens their mouth, any previous transgression would be thrown straight back at them. That's why I remain convinced that LeMond was squeaky clean.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
samerics said:
Right on the money. As soon as a rider who has genuinely cleaned up opens their mouth, any previous transgression would be thrown straight back at them. That's why I remain convinced that LeMond was squeaky clean.
can you explain what exactly you are referring too? who has genuinely cleaned up?

and there are plenty of LeMond threads if you want to discuss as to what your opinion is?

Nearly said:
Being Bikepure does not impose an obligation to speak out as much as we may want it to.

No doubt his name is Irish cycling royalty but cycling fans will know the other two very well. I was responding to your point that " ....the main reason is that Roche is Irish....". Yes Kimmage is passionate but he seems to take it personally when an Irish cyclist who happens to be a journalist does not share that passion or if he does does not exercise it as he would (at least while he is still a professional cylist and part time columnist).
aligning yourself with bikepure and also being a columnist would i imagine mean that you would take advantage to promote clean cycling as the sport does have a tarnished image.

it is very easy to say its nothing to do with him. but if you were suffering because of others cheating i dont understand why you would accept that. he didn't accept his teammate breaking unwritten team rules and costing him a position in GC???

i think that the interview on the radio was far too short for Kimmage to even have a chance to get expand it to anything more than soundbites, which is what newstalk were after.
 
RE Everybody talking about speaking out + Landis, Simeoni, Bassons etc..

I remember Yoann Offredo and Sylvain Chavanel talking about AC, saying something like 'we all saw it coming' and 'it's up to him to get out of this' and Offredo said that they were shocked it was clenbuterol and not something else.

Don't know if that counts as speaking out on the level of Simeoni, Bassons, Landis etc, but that's a lot better than most other riders.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY