- Feb 21, 2010
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.gree0232 said:I am curious as to why so many people are demanding that 'cyclists' come forward to denounce AC and other cyclists?
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 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?
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.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?
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.If an office mate in your office pops hot for cocaine, are you also guilty of using cocaine UNLESS you immediately denounce him?
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.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.
You've lost your train of thought here. No one can follow your disjointed mess of the English language.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 ....
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.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.
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.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?
"Our"? You presume quite a bit of ownership. What is your precise investment?Why do we give the zealots, the rabid accussers, access to our sport?
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.
No. If you could be specific, rather than pose a grossly irresponsible and sweeping question, maybe you'd get a deatiled answer.Does anyone really think that running around accussing people of doping is what will clean up doping?
Interesting way to close out your disjointed rant.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.
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.