Kimmage on Contador

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 15, 2010
1,318
0
0
131313 said:
Exactly. How can you have outrage when you yourself are worried about blowing a positive test for an inconsequential amount of something which could easily be from contamination.

Sorry, but the strict liability for substances such as this are total BS. I have more outrage for that than for Contador.

Now if you want to talk about the plasticizers, well, that's a different matter. But then, let's talk about the plasticizer test results for all of the top 20. Then I'll put together some outrage.

I like Kimmage's intent, to a degree, but I also think it's a total punk move to try and intimidate someone to say what you want them to say. Not much difference than Armstrong in a certain sense. I realize that's not a popular position on here, but oh well.
Too true.kimmage didn't say s**t about drugs when he was an up and coming pro.Why expect Roche to do it.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
simo1733 said:
Too true.kimmage didn't say s**t about drugs when he was an up and coming pro.Why expect Roche to do it.
Kimmage was a pro for less than 3 years and then did say lots of sh*t about drugs.

Roche is entering his 6th year as a pro.

when Kimmage was a pro the media and public were not faced with the doping issue of the modern era and the fact that a 7 time TdF winner has doped his whole career and is being investigated by the Feds.

Pro cycling is constantly being called and considered as the sport where everybody dopes. why doesn't he stand up and say he doesn't and condemn those that do?

edit; i added to the first line.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Benotti69 said:
Kimmage was a pro for less than 3 years

Roche is entering his 6th year as a pro.

when Kimmage was a pro the media and public were not faced with the doping issue of the modern era and the fact that a 7 time TdF winner has doped his whole career and is being investigated by the Feds.

Pro cycling is constantly being called and considered as the sport where everybody dopes. why doesn't he stand up and say he doesn't and condemn those that do?
+1

simo1733 said:
Too true.kimmage didn't say s**t about drugs when he was an up and coming pro.Why expect Roche to do it.
Focus on the meaning of the words CHANGE and PRESENT.
Kimmage is trying to bring about a change in present cycling mentality.
Kimmage probably'll be the first to admit that he could have spoken up louder as a rider himself.
But that's in the past, and I don't see why that would disallow or disqualify him to try and bring about a change in the very present.
 
Alpe d'Huez said:
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.
The analogy was all mine. And yours doesn't seem close, due to the simple fact that you can make statements about the behavior of others in private, but to say anything publicly one must have irrefutable proof.

This is why most riders don't say anything. A rider also runs the risk of getting blackballed from the sport, so it's in most of their best interests to not rock the boat.


Alpe d'Huez said:
Do you believe it actually came from contaminated meat??? If not, then how do you think it got into his system?
Food contamination could come from anything people eat. The fact is no one knows. It's senseless for someone to test positive over something they ingested inadvertently and then have to prove where it came from weeks after the fact. There has to be a better way.


Alpe d'Huez said:
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?
You think, you don't know. You're willing to take away someone's livelihood to prove a point that is hypothetical at best? How is that setting a good precedent going forward? As for the teammate "alluding", that again doesn't make it true. Maybe so if one is so inclined to want to find Contador guilty, but that really isn't fair.


Alpe d'Huez said:
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.
The problem is there has to be proof of blood doping. We can conjecture all we want, but the integrity of this whole anti-doping movement is at stake (no pun intended).

I would rather see Contador get a slap on the wrist than see him go down for this. If it was a clear case of doping (EPO, testosterone, blood transfusion, HgH) then I would have no problem seeing him sanctioned. But I believe there are so many people hell-bent on seeing him go for whatever reason they are willing to suspend due process just to see Contador hang.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Berzin said:
I would rather see Contador get a slap on the wrist than see him go down for this. If it was a clear case of doping (EPO, testosterone, blood transfusion, HgH) then I would have no problem seeing him sanctioned. But I believe there are so many people hell-bent on seeing him go for whatever reason they are willing to suspend due process just to see Contador hang.

My personal (and probably that of many others) problem with AC, is that he symbolizes the 2006 OP coverup.
but I agree, as long as shotgun-evidence fails, rumors shouldn't interfere in the current decision making.
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
0
Berzin said:
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.

.
Exactly - so I think we can all agree on silence being bad,
 
May 25, 2010
250
0
0
Benotti69 said:
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?
When an administrator on here tells me it's against the rules to use a rider as an example of what I consider to be a clean rider then maybe I will take notice, I was merely using him as an example, so deal with it :)

Secondly, I was talking hypothetically, as neither you or I can know anything until it is in the public domain. So many people on here are 100% certain that some individuals are not clean, but in the majority of cases it is just opinion, remember that. If you've got proof, nail them, but the amount of times people are hung put to dry on here based on previous associations or impressive performances is ridiculous. It's like a Paranoiacs Convention in here at times ;-)
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Benotti69 said:
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?
samerics said:
When an administrator on here tells me it's against the rules to use a rider as an example of what I consider to be a clean rider then maybe I will take notice, I was merely using him as an example, so deal with it :)

Secondly, I was talking hypothetically, as neither you or I can know anything until it is in the public domain. So many people on here are 100% certain that some individuals are not clean, but in the majority of cases it is just opinion, remember that. If you've got proof, nail them, but the amount of times people are hung put to dry on here based on previous associations or impressive performances is ridiculous. It's like a Paranoiacs Convention in here at times ;-)
great post:rolleyes:
 
Mar 8, 2010
3,263
0
0
roundabout said:
Kimmage should really contact Jaksche and ask him about the current Contador protestations.

Would hopefully open some fanboys eyes as to why a slap on the wrist would be pointless.
JJ wouldn't talk to him because Kimme is under his level and is counterproductive for the fight against doping.

Tone makes the music. Especially since his cancercomments he is a desperate outlaw who is avoided.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
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.
It depends on your reading of the work space.

What if the general culture in the stock-trade was insider-treading? What if those in charge of licenses, oversight, and punitive actions had a steering hand in it too? What if your own employer had a role as well?

What if it probably wasn't the rogue trader who would lose his license, but the chance that the closed shoulder network wouldn't snap by your "crusade", and the chance that it would be you out of a job was an equally realistic one?

To that, add a massive upheaval to your personal life for the next x-years, a guaranteed position as some sort of global spotlight pinball, a past that will constantly come back to you even if you decide to move on with life.....

You start to add all sorts of real life complications that you probably never really signed up for when you simply wanted to be banker and provide for you and your dearest.

I am not condoning, I am not saying there should be no guilt amongst thieves.

But it ain't black and white to me. Kimmage remains diplomatic, but has become quite black and white as well. Now.

From someone who kept his era's omerta about the pre-determined-crit-results (granted, a different scale, but a sham nevertheless), and who wasn't ratting out his close cycling connections there and then either, when dope was common place in his era too, but found that courage after the event, once he had removed himself and secured a new role for himself that buttered his bread, in a book-for-sale, that also didn't have the guts to name folk and stand up to them.... hmmmm.

I admire his dedication and crusade. I get the frustration. I get why he feels this is the time to make a communal heave-ho.

But I am not as impressed as some here, when he insists others should do what he didn't have in him himself, and only found at a time when it no longer really costs him, I think.

I am sure people invited him to be a bit more gutsy when he published his book too (amidst all the vilifying he got to endure). At that time, throughout, on the bike and freshly off it, he too, constantly, judged what would be too pricey, what he was personally was willing to do, and what to swallow, and acted accordingly.

He has changed seats now, and has taken the role of being the "black and white" encourager and persuader. The annoying wasp that won't go away and keeps stinging. The one that keeps telling even the Kimmages to be bolder. [I am glad he does so, btw, I am complicated that way.]

The thing is, the people he is addressing, like Roche, are just as much the sort of Kimmage that he was, and probably still is, by deciding what is wise for themselves, given where they are at and what their own consequences are.

Regardless what forum posters here think folk like Roche "obviously" should do next, I think anyone is perfectly entitled to make up their own mind when it comes to their own lives.

I have surged forwards into other people's fights. It is a risk I take, and a risk I encourage others to take, for many reasons. But it is a risk with a potentially high price tag. It is my decision, nad I won't let anyone make it for me either. I won't insist that anyone should surge forwards because I feel they should, for that reason. I won't be paying their price, only the one I am willing to stake myself. We all keep within our own limits, even the risk takers. So if I am calling for pain on the horizon, and it is all their bones in the firing line, they decide for themselves. And I will respect their personal choice in it.

I might adjust my clap-o-meter according to the stance they take. I might try to find a route to still get my way, even if it costs them, if I think it is for the greater good. But I won't disrespect anyone for coming to reasonable alternative conclusions, for how active they should become on -mostly- my behalf, for what I want (more).
 
sniper said:
My personal (and probably that of many others) problem with AC, is that he symbolizes the 2006 OP coverup.
but I agree, as long as shotgun-evidence fails, rumors shouldn't interfere in the current decision making
.
Yes, but again about Operation Puerto-someone found Contador's initials written somewhere, therefore he MUST be guilty of being involved?

Think of it this way-so far, how many athletes have served some type of suspension over OP? Basso, Valverde, and a couple of others. Jan Ullrich retired on the heels of this scandal, yet...the doctor who ran the clinic went off and set up another doping ring!!!

You gotta be kiddin' me with this!!! It's ludicrous how this fight is being waged!!!
 
Jul 14, 2009
2,499
0
0
while I agree with most of what Postman wrote..I think a bigger part of the solution is to take the punishment phase of doping up 1 level. If the team was fined and given a 1 month suspension .It may drive the message home easier than seeing a system in place and punishing only the rider rather than the systems architect
 
Sep 21, 2009
2,978
0
0
fatandfast said:
while I agree with most of what Postman wrote..I think a bigger part of the solution is to take the punishment phase of doping up 1 level. If the team was fined and given a 1 month suspension .It may drive the message home easier than seeing a system in place and punishing only the rider rather than the systems architect
That won't work at all. Guys like Contador have their own coach/mechanical/medical staff and go everywhere together when they change teams. Teams do not (cannot) have full control on their riders and will never accept such approach in the fight against doping.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Francois the Postman said:
It depends on your reading of the work space.

What if the general culture in the stock-trade was insider-treading? What if those in charge of licenses, oversight, and punitive actions had a steering hand in it too? What if your own employer had a role as well?

What if it probably wasn't the rogue trader who would lose his license, but the chance that the closed shoulder network wouldn't snap by your "crusade", and the chance that it would be you out of a job was an equally realistic one?

To that, add a massive upheaval to your personal life for the next x-years, a guaranteed position as some sort of global spotlight pinball, a past that will constantly come back to you even if you decide to move on with life.....

You start to add all sorts of real life complications that you probably never really signed up for when you simply wanted to be banker and provide for you and your dearest.

I am not condoning, I am not saying there should be no guilt amongst thieves.

But it ain't black and white to me. Kimmage remains diplomatic, but has become quite black and white as well. Now.

From someone who kept his era's omerta about the pre-determined-crit-results (granted, a different scale, but a sham nevertheless), and who wasn't ratting out his close cycling connections there and then either, when dope was common place in his era too, but found that courage after the event, once he had removed himself and secured a new role for himself that buttered his bread, in a book-for-sale, that also didn't have the guts to name folk and stand up to them.... hmmmm.

I admire his dedication and crusade. I get the frustration. I get why he feels this is the time to make a communal heave-ho.

But I am not as impressed as some here, when he insists others should do what he didn't have in him himself, and only found at a time when it no longer really costs him, I think.

I am sure people invited him to be a bit more gutsy when he published his book too (amidst all the vilifying he got to endure). At that time, throughout, on the bike and freshly off it, he too, constantly, judged what would be too pricey, what he was personally was willing to do, and what to swallow, and acted accordingly.

He has changed seats now, and has taken the role of being the "black and white" encourager and persuader. The annoying wasp that won't go away and keeps stinging. The one that keeps telling even the Kimmages to be bolder. [I am glad he does so, btw, I am complicated that way.]

The thing is, the people he is addressing, like Roche, are just as much the sort of Kimmage that he was, and probably still is, by deciding what is wise for themselves, given where they are at and what their own consequences are.

Regardless what forum posters here think folk like Roche "obviously" should do next, I think anyone is perfectly entitled to make up their own mind when it comes to their own lives.

I have surged forwards into other people's fights. It is a risk I take, and a risk I encourage others to take, for many reasons. But it is a risk with a potentially high price tag. It is my decision, nad I won't let anyone make it for me either. I won't insist that anyone should surge forwards because I feel they should, for that reason. I won't be paying their price, only the one I am willing to stake myself. We all keep within our own limits, even the risk takers. So if I am calling for pain on the horizon, and it is all their bones in the firing line, they decide for themselves. And I will respect their personal choice in it.

I might adjust my clap-o-meter according to the stance they take. I might try to find a route to still get my way, even if it costs them, if I think it is for the greater good. But I won't disrespect anyone for coming to reasonable alternative conclusions, for how active they should become on -mostly- my behalf, for what I want (more).
Ok - there are a few problems in your post.

Kimmage is not asking Roche to "out" people but he is asking why he has not said "good riddance" to a guy like Contador who has been caught doping.

Also when Kimmage wrote his book it was pre Festina - there is no comparison between when he wrote his book and now. At that time it was the most explosive expose on the sport ever written.

He also made it clear in the book that it was not to "out" or name individuals, as the problems he saw were systematic and endemic of sport. Highlighting individuals would only have detracted from that.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
icefire said:
That won't work at all. Guys like Contador have their own coach/mechanical/medical staff and go everywhere together when they change teams. Teams do not (cannot) have full control on their riders and will never accept such approach in the fight against doping.
Ok -this is OT, but why would you even ask them?
Allowing athletes to have their own 'medical staff' is a big part of the problem, this area should be regulated properly.

It is up to the governing body to set and implement the rules - it is not a democracy. If Bjarne or Johan don't like it he can take a long walk off a short plank - or as Kimmage might say "good riddance".
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Ok - there are a few problems in your post.

Kimmage is not asking Roche to "out" people but he is asking why he has not said "good riddance" to a guy like Contador who has been caught doping.

Also when Kimmage wrote his book it was pre Festina - there is no comparison between when he wrote his book and now. At that time it was the most explosive expose on the sport ever written.

He also made it clear in the book that it was not to "out" or name individuals, as the problems he saw were systematic and endemic of sport. Highlighting individuals would only have detracted from that.
Well, and Roche is pre-whatever-the-next-big-scandal-ahead-of-us-is. I bet that from Roche pov, regardless of what we had so far, his world hasn't changed enough yet to stick his neck out too far now, if that is what he wants to do with his life. He might well judge there are still plenty of next-hurdles to cross before he can take a bold stand that doesn't have a decent chance of blowing up in his own face.

Actually, you raise the very point which might neatly answer his and your question why Roche doesn't say "good riddance" to an individual, when the problem is systematic and far more complex than simple scape-goating, setting you up for all sorts of accusations of being a hypocrite. Kimmage decided that naming and shaming wasn't effective or part of his route as it would probably be an excuse to scapegoat individuals rather than solve anything (rightly or wrongly). Then swallow that others make similar calls about their behaviour, for whatever reason (rightly or wrongly).

He questions why Roche isn't using his column space to say "good riddance"? I question why he insists (kinda) that others should do what he never did, in the job. maybe he simply just doesn't care that much. He became a cyclist. That doesn't include a clause that you should become a work place crusader.

All of us get on with things as they are and hope others do the heavy dirty lifting somewhere in our lives. At work all the more so. We all feel that people really should care about the things that matter most to us, or at least help us getting there ASAP.

Speculating here, but maybe Roche is doing what makes sense to him for him (and maybe us too), without becoming either a hypocrite or a future casualty.

You underscore that Kimmage wrote the book he thought was right for his time, for what he wanted to do. On his terms. Totally. He is now stoking the sort of fire underneath people like Roche, that he avoided too ("Jump even further than you are doing").

It is a fire that he wasn't willing to jump when folk did it to him. I don't get people who are only able/willing to see things as it suits them, when it suits them.

For me "good riddance" is far too easy. And when it is coming out of the mouth of someone who toed the line(s) in his time, following the toeing norms of his era... no, sorry, not as impressed as some here.

[again, I don't want him to stop, as we need voices like that. From a functional pov Kimmage is a useful wasp].
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Ok - there are a few problems in your post.

Kimmage is not asking Roche to "out" people but he is asking why he has not said "good riddance" to a guy like Contador who has been caught doping.

Also when Kimmage wrote his book it was pre Festina - there is no comparison between when he wrote his book and now. At that time it was the most explosive expose on the sport ever written.

He also made it clear in the book that it was not to "out" or name individuals, as the problems he saw were systematic and endemic of sport. Highlighting individuals would only have detracted from that.
Excellent Post Dr.
this is why i was supportive from the start with Kimmage he made it very clear in his book he was not there to name names , it was to bring the issue into the light and show how widespread the problem really was.
I am sure he was hoping for a little more support from riders to take the opportunity to start to clean things up. It went the other way unfortunately.

Here he is again offering opportunity and riders who purport to be clean are not seizing it. Sad.
As far as Francois the Postman, in his long winded way he basically is just another apologist for the system. He acknowledges the problem but finds excuses as to why the riders should shirk their responsibility. That is the type of thinking that got us here.
Where i come from growing up you had a degree of morality that kept you on the right path.When that would wane you could count on your parents to set you straight. Beyond that you had other family, neighbors, even total strangers who stressed principles that included honesty above all else.

A quick example, when i was little, i was in the store with my mother. I can't remember what i did wrong exactly, but i compounded it by lying. I knew i would be punished for that alone, but i hoped with my footspeed and being in a public place i would be safe. I took off down one aisle after another with my Mother in hot pursuit. Total strangers tried to slow me down, i thought they would help, but they had the same skewed sense of values as my mother! Don't they know little boys just want to have fun? Finally one grabbed me and held on until my mother caught up. She said to me"you've been bad and need to be punished but even worse you lied and ran away from your punishment"
then she turned to my Mom and said"you need a hairbrush?"
My mom said no thanks she was gonna use her shoe.
Nowadays of course it is easier to just watch the circus and rationalize why we shouldn't step forward. And that is the problem with people like Francois, he knows what has transpired and he is just fishing for an excuse for people to not take responsibility.
What we need is fewer people like him who watch the spectacle shake their head and say"what are you gonna do?"
Instead we need people to step forward and help.
I don't mean for this to be a personal attack, i am using Francois as an example of why we are in this mess. Too many attitudes of people who sit back ,watch, and then rationalize behaviour instead of speaking out and taking action.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Francois the Postman said:
Well, and Roche is pre-whatever-the-next-big-scandal-ahead-of-us-is. I bet that from Roche pov, regardless of what we had so far, his world hasn't changed enough yet to stick his neck out too far now, if that is what he wants to do with his life. He might well judge there are still plenty of next-hurdles to cross before he can take a bold stand that doesn't have a decent chance of blowing up in his own face.

Actually, you raise the very point which might neatly answers his and your question why Roche doesn't say "Good Riddance" to an individual, when the problem is systematic and far more complex than simple scape-goating, setting you up for all sorts of accusations of being a hypocrite. Kimmage decided that naming and shaming wasn't effective or part of his route (rightly or wrongly). Then swallow that others make similar calls about their behaviour, for whatever reason (rightly or wrongly).

He questions why Roche isn't using his column space to say "good riddance"? I question why he insists (kinda) that others should do what he never did, in the job.

Speculating here, but maybe Roche is doing what makes sense to him, without becoming either a hypocrite or a future casualty.

You underscore that Kimmage wrote the book he thought was right for his time, for what he wanted to do. On his terms. Totally. He is now stoking the sort of fire underneath people like Roche, that he avoided too ("Jump even further than you are doing").

It is a fire that he wasn't willing to jump when folk did it to him. I don't get people who are only able/willing to see things as it suits them, when it suits them.

For me "good riddance" is far too easy. And when it is coming out of the mouth of someone who toed the line(s) in his time, following the toeing norms of his era... no, sorry, not as impressed as some here.

[again, I don't want him to stop, as we need voices like that. From a functional pov Kimmage is a useful wasp].
Well in short you are saying that Roches silence may be not to seem "hypocritical" - which is exactly the point.

Again what Kimmage requested was Roche to say "good riddance" to someone who has been caught, that is a major distinction.

I would guess that Kimmage would be equally happy if Roche had a pop at the system instead of an individual.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Francois the Postman said:
It is a fire that he wasn't willing to jump when folk did it to him. I don't get people who are only able/willing to see things as it suits them, when it suits them.
You are guilty of this. You act like Kimmage didn't take a huge leap doing what he did and now he is asking Roche to do something he was reluctant to do.
You are seeing what you wish.
Kimmage laid the ground work. He put himself out there and took the ridicule.
He was accused of being a bitter no talent and this was his revenge.
Naming names would have only reinforced that view. It would have diluted the message and given critics more opportunity to frame his allegations as a personal vendetta.
He did not hesitate to mention riders he thought to be clean, if u remember.

So Paul laid the groundwork, people now know there is a large doping culture in cycling. What is needed at this point is for people to help things along. It is a small step really what he is asking, instead of continuing omerta, just a little acknowledgement that justice is coming. Contador gets popped, his excuse is not plausible in the least(cattle farmer here) all Roche needed to do was do a little common sense observation that Celbuterol is used and AC was positive for its use and maybe that is why he does so well.

Instead you decide to look the other way because you think Kimmage is asking too much of others. Really you are still bashing Kimmage like they did back then. Life is not fair, but we have responsibilty to society. If when your turn to take a pull comes you decide to soft pedal because the guy in front took a short pull you are hurting everyone.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Francois the Postman said:
snip....

But it ain't black and white to me. Kimmage remains diplomatic, but has become quite black and white as well. Now.

From someone who kept his era's omerta about the pre-determined-crit-results (granted, a different scale, but a sham nevertheless), and who wasn't ratting out his close cycling connections there and then either, when dope was common place in his era too, but found that courage after the event, once he had removed himself and secured a new role for himself that buttered his bread, in a book-for-sale, that also didn't have the guts to name folk and stand up to them.... hmmmm.
i think Roche Jnr eyes were very much open as a junior growing up and racing in France and having a father who was named in an Italian court as a client of Conconi. Whereas Kimmage raced in in Ireland as a junior. A massive difference.

Kimmage had not secured himself a new role, he had no formal training to be a writer or journalist and has a qualification in a trade(plumber) and in the 80's Ireland that was no guarantee of a job

Francois the Postman said:
I admire his dedication and crusade. I get the frustration. I get why he feels this is the time to make a communal heave-ho.

But I am not as impressed as some here, when he insists others should do what he didn't have in him himself, and only found at a time when it no longer really costs him, I think.
I think there is a massive difference between what was being taken then and what is being used now. Also there is now a great opportunity for riders to change the omerta. we all know about it, it written about daily in the papers, they are shooting their lively hoods in the foot if they continue on the route they are going, so why not demand that they take their sport in their own hands and demand it be cleaned up?

Francois the Postman said:
I am sure people invited him to be a bit more gutsy when he published his book too (amidst all the vilifying he got to endure). At that time, throughout, on the bike and freshly off it, he too, constantly, judged what would be too pricey, what he was personally was willing to do, and what to swallow, and acted accordingly.
I think at the time he was advised by season journalists, but if you think about, he could have named lots of people, but maybe he wanted to give them the opportunity to say it has to stop. the book was written the riders could have said, now people think we dope lets prove we dont.

Francois the Postman said:
He has changed seats now, and has taken the role of being the "black and white" encourager and persuader. The annoying wasp that won't go away and keeps stinging. The one that keeps telling even the Kimmages to be bolder. [I am glad he does so, btw, I am complicated that way.]
I dont think wasp is an apt analogy.

Francois the Postman said:
The thing is, the people he is addressing, like Roche, are just as much the sort of Kimmage that he was, and probably still is, by deciding what is wise for themselves, given where they are at and what their own consequences are.
I dont see it as Kimmage and Roche are similar. kimmage was a domestique who refused to dope(in 1987 when he used amphetamines three times in one month for three criteriums. ). Roche is a team leader who has had some very goood results in GTs. He is also using a McQuaid as his agent.

Kimmage was was not given a chance to expand his thoughts in the interview. He was asked about Contador and he also took the opportunity to called out a rider whom he probably knows a lot more about them we do.

Francois the Postman said:
Regardless what forum posters here think folk like Roche "obviously" should do next, I think anyone is perfectly entitled to make up their own mind when it comes to their own lives.
I think we are forgetting Kimmage's view is that the sport has to be cleaned up starting with the riders demanding it, demanding the uci get its act together etc....

Francois the Postman said:
I have surged forwards into other people's fights. It is a risk I take, and a risk I encourage others to take, for many reasons. But it is a risk with a potentially high price tag. It is my decision, nad I won't let anyone make it for me either. I won't insist that anyone should surge forwards because I feel they should, for that reason. I won't be paying their price, only the one I am willing to stake myself. We all keep within our own limits, even the risk takers. So if I am calling for pain on the horizon, and it is all their bones in the firing line, they decide for themselves. And I will respect their personal choice in it.

I might adjust my clap-o-meter according to the stance they take. I might try to find a route to still get my way, even if it costs them, if I think it is for the greater good. But I won't disrespect anyone for coming to reasonable alternative conclusions, for how active they should become on -mostly- my behalf, for what I want (more).
Kimmage mentioned in the interview Andy Schlecks's reaction that Schleck still considered Contador the winner.


an interesting interview with Kimmage from 2009

http://velocitynation.com/node/2750

you can see the difference in his tone.
 
runninboy said:
Excellent Post Dr.
this is why i was supportive from the start with Kimmage he made it very clear in his book he was not there to name names , it was to bring the issue into the light and show how widespread the problem really was.
I am sure he was hoping for a little more support from riders to take the opportunity to start to clean things up. It went the other way unfortunately.

Here he is again offering opportunity and riders who purport to be clean are not seizing it. Sad.
As far as Francois the Postman, in his long winded way he basically is just another apologist for the system. He acknowledges the problem but finds excuses as to why the riders should shirk their responsibility. That is the type of thinking that got us here.
Where i come from growing up you had a degree of morality that kept you on the right path.When that would wane you could count on your parents to set you straight. Beyond that you had other family, neighbors, even total strangers who stressed principles that included honesty above all else.

A quick example, when i was little, i was in the store with my mother. I can't remember what i did wrong exactly, but i compounded it by lying. I knew i would be punished for that alone, but i hoped with my footspeed and being in a public place i would be safe. I took off down one aisle after another with my Mother in hot pursuit. Total strangers tried to slow me down, i thought they would help, but they had the same skewed sense of values as my mother! Don't they know little boys just want to have fun? Finally one grabbed me and held on until my mother caught up. She said to me"you've been bad and need to be punished but even worse you lied and ran away from your punishment"
then she turned to my Mom and said"you need a hairbrush?"
My mom said no thanks she was gonna use her shoe.
Nowadays of course it is easier to just watch the circus and rationalize why we shouldn't step forward. And that is the problem with people like Francois, he knows what has transpired and he is just fishing for an excuse for people to not take responsibility.
What we need is fewer people like him who watch the spectacle shake their head and say"what are you gonna do?"
Instead we need people to step forward and help.
I don't mean for this to be a personal attack, i am using Francois as an example of why we are in this mess. Too many attitudes of people who sit back ,watch, and then rationalize behaviour instead of speaking out and taking action.
Wow, a stranger offers a hair brush for your Mom to beat you with, but your Mom is happy to hit you with a shoe. Where did grow up? In Victorian England?

Pro cyclists don't have a "duty" to do anything but ride their bikes and not dope. It isn't their responsibilty to make the rules or out other riders.
Kimmage wasnt prepared to do it when he was a rider and still isnt prepared to discuss HIS PEERS, Kelly and Roche, with any conviction. Seems like double standards to me.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
Wow, a stranger offers a hair brush for your Mom to beat you with, but your Mom is happy to hit you with a shoe. Where did grow up? In Victorian England?

Pro cyclists don't have a "duty" to do anything but ride their bikes and not dope. It isn't their responsibilty to make the rules or out other riders.
Kimmage wasnt prepared to do it when he was a rider and still isnt prepared to discuss HIS PEERS, Kelly and Roche, with any conviction. Seems like double standards to me.
Kimmage has had no problem discussing Kelly or Roche.

Again Kimmage qualified why Roche should speak out ... (or not remain silent)
What I want to hear, I want to hear Nicolas Roche, I want to see a two page spread in the Irish Independent from Nicolas Roche saying "good riddance to Alberto Contador", because this is needs to happen, you know the public needs to know that these guys who are riding with these fellas are making a stand against this, because that what it needs.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts