Kimmage on Contador

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 16, 2009
860
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.
Just proves my point. Obviously your society growing up had different standards than mine. Crime is much more prevalent now, guess we didn't know anything.
Right no one has a duty. Absolutely correct. You can't make someone do the right thing. I would hope someone does.

Hope you enjoy cycling and Society for many years to come
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
runninboy said:
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.
I would buy that if I was the sort of person who would step back myself, and use this "make my own mind up as my excuse for inaction". For me.

And if you are using me as an example of people not stepping forwards when it could cost you, who are part of the attitude problem, and sit back.... you have no idea.

I do hear you, I believe you are right. You might well jump in when it matters to someone, taking big risks in the process, and I would cheer you all the way. If you do, I don't know.

But I also have tasted on more than one occasion what the difference is between writing that sort of stuff, hearing that sort of stuff, and then seeing how many people are actually willing to jump in with you when it gets a bit real and in-your-face... when I frequently went in anyway. Not always. In the end I am no different, not special. I make a personal calculation and act accordingly, on a scale that makes sense to me.

And I still don't blame those that decide that my scale is not theirs.... because my mother taught me well too.

I might be long-winded. But there is still more to it than you have read.

My experience with groups of people is that they are quick to tell others that they should "do something right" and "see right", but once on-the-spot themselves, identical or similar, the number of actual jumpers is depressing, the moment the water is likely to become choppy. I don't questions people honestly held beliefs, I accept it will guide them mostly, and probably guide them well. But on the knife's edge. No, sorry, different things kick in for everyone.

I don't excuse riders. I don't blame (probably most of) them. And I certainly won't make their real-life decisions for them, given I have nothing to lose, and only to gain.

Apologist for the system? It looks I need to use even more words then, if you read my posts here on this forum that poorly. Sorry.

Kimmage stood on a knife's edge, but decided that being a hero there and then wasn't gonna work. I think he mad the right call, but I also stress that it was his call to make. His and his alone. He vented his frustration and wrote a book. He then ignored people then who could characterise him as another apologist, one who gave excuses to transgressors he could finger there and then (it is the system as a whole, not the people I know and i kinda get where they coming from and it would be unfair if.... ).

There is an amazing parallel, to me. It is interesting for me to see how people can change seats and either not realize it, or see it, but decide that the new seat is befitting the role they have to (or can/hope to) play.

Sure I am an apologist and part of the problem, and you know what is "right". If that simplifies your argument, feel free to see it that way. It will also be where I remove myself from the discussion.
 
runninboy said:
Just proves my point. Obviously your society growing up had different standards than mine. Crime is much more prevalent now, guess we didn't know anything.
Right no one has a duty. Absolutely correct. You can't make someone do the right thing. I would hope someone does.

Hope you enjoy cycling and Society for many years to come
"Do the right thing"

What does that even mean?
The right thing for the rider?
The right thing for his family?
The right thing for his sponsors?
The right thing for the UCI?
The right thing for Kimmage?

Tell me who "the right thing" is for, and I will give you a different answer for each. Hell, ask me the same question in 12 months and I'll have a different set of answers.

The riders have many choices to make, with the consequences felt a lot closer to home than the people that watch them. They have a job to do, not a hobby, not a dream, but a Job.

They are there to earn a living, not be a freedom fighter or crusder.

So if you are wondering why riders are not so keen to rock the boat as the journalists and fans, its because they have to continue in their place of work long after the journalist has won his acclaim or the doper has turned informant.
 
May 10, 2009
4,638
1
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.
Absolutely not true.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
Again what Kimmage requested was Roche to say "good riddance" to someone who has been caught, that is a major distinction.
No it is not.

Kimmage didn't do a "good riddance" dance in public about his team mates and colleagues the moment they proved to be guilty to him, by seeing it first-hand. All the proof you need, not? So he didn't exactly say "good riddance" quite same way, to "someone who has been caught". Arguably, still not.

He pussyfooted around (for good reasons, I think) and went for the whole of the system (because that's where the real problem lies, and only once outside of it, so he could do it without the obvious immediate repercussions).

Kimmage knows is not about scape-goating individuals. He himself made that decision (arguably still does). He knows that the problem is much bigger than the few caught. Then and now.

He saw it first hand in his own days, even in his own team. Then he decided he shouldn't pick on them. Now he demands a public display of scape-goating, even if others might judge that "good riddance Alberto" actually distracts from a much more important picture.

That someone is proven to be guilty is the immaterial bit I guess, strange as that might sound on first reading. If your starting point is that "guilty" is a rare verdict in a big pool of dope, you are still singling out the select few for special treatment, if you go full throttle at them, once they are caught.

It is a perfectly reasonable position to take that "good riddance" theatre might not be the best way forwards, maybe even hinder the even bigger picture.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
runninboy said:
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.
If I wrote that you would be right. Again, for the hard of he hearing...

I am glad what he does. I am glad we have his book. I think he still has a role to play, one he seems keen to play. That doesn't mean I give him a free pass. he is asking Roche to do more than he did. Roche is still on the inside.

Instead you decide to look the other way
Now you are just making things up. I don't. Nor do I ask others to do this either. I do say that people are not obliged to walk your walk, simply because you feel it is the right thing to do, unless you are also willing to compensate them for the cost that your walk will inflict on them (and totally miss you).
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
andy1234 said:
"Do the right thing"

What does that even mean?
The right thing for the rider?
The right thing for his family?
The right thing for his sponsors?
The right thing for the UCI?
The right thing for Kimmage?

Tell me who "the right thing" is for, and I will give you a different answer for each. Hell, ask me the same question in 12 months and I'll have a different set of answers.

The riders have many choices to make, with the consequences felt a lot closer to home than the people that watch them. They have a job to do, not a hobby, not a dream, but a Job.

They are there to earn a living, not be a freedom fighter or crusder.
OK this is an easy one. it is not why i say is right or my interprestation of right it is what the rules say is right.
The UCI has made the decision what is right and it is up to the riders to stand up and support the system that they compete under.
It has been shown that Contador cheated under the rules, he had a positive result. So stand up and back up the system.
Roche wasn't asked to do anything other than support the system he agreed to as a Pro.
There is but one choice, play by the rules. To rationalize "i did it to keep my job" is a crock. I guess Bernie Madoff is OK too, and any other criminal. I am sure they all need to eat and they were doing it to put food on the table.
Really really expensive food.

You don't need to be a freedom fighter to support the rules that are in place.
 
May 24, 2010
3,444
0
0
Given the venom that is being directed at AC for what has been found in his system. And given the lack of ability to absolutey, without a shadow of a doubt, prove that he ingested this illegal substance intentionally, yet he is a recipient of unbridled rage from almost all on this thread. I'd say that if this is representative of the widespread sentiment amongst those that follow cycling, he truly ought to retire, as he originally mused near the beginning of this affair.
For me there is too much grey area to condemn him as absolutely as many on this thread (and many other previous threads)have done. This miniscule amount of Clenbuterol, which could have been ingested accidentally, has unleashed a rage that is truly disturbing to witness. And most of the rage has been fueled by speculation. Speculation that he has been transfusing. Speculation that he was involved in Operacion Puerto. Speculation that he has been doping all along, and that he is desperately, and unflinchingly lying every step of the way. Traces of clenbuterol, and all are shouting out Hallelujah that we have finally caught him. I'm surprised the death penalty hasn't been suggested. Have fun trashing me and my post. But I find it ALL very disgusting to watch, and very indicative of our culture at this time. Angry, unsympathetic, prejudiced. As far as I'm concerned, this sport has NO credibility, none. I will still watch, now and again. But I will certainly go riding with less regard for the professional level of the sport. And I will exclude myself from conversations that pass any final judgement on anybody that participates in this sport.....How disappointing it has all become.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
Francois the Postman said:
No it is not.

Kimmage didn't do a "good riddance" dance in public about his team mates and colleagues the moment they proved to be guilty to him, by seeing it first-hand. All the proof you need, not? So he didn't exactly say "good riddance" quite same way, to "someone who has been caught". Arguably, still not.

He pussyfooted around (for good reasons, I think) and went for the whole of the system (because that's where the real problem lies, and only once outside of it, so he could do it without the obvious immediate repercussions).

Kimmage knows is not about scape-goating individuals. He himself made that decision (arguably still does). He knows that the problem is much bigger than the few caught. Then and now.

He saw it first hand in his own days, even in his own team. Then he decided he shouldn't pick on them. Now he demands a public display of scape-goating, even if others might judge that "good riddance Alberto" actually distracts from a much more important picture.

That someone is proven to be guilty is the immaterial bit I guess, strange as that might sound on first reading. If your starting point is that "guilty" is a rare verdict in a big pool of dope, you are still singling out the select few for special treatment, if you go full throttle at them, once they are caught.

It is a perfectly reasonable position to take that "good riddance" theatre might not be the best way forwards, maybe even hinder the even bigger picture.
He didn't say "good riddance" back in 1990.....because no-one was caught!

If he had named names (not something he is even asking Roche to do) it would have taken from the subject he wanted (and still does) want addressed. Look what happened with Landis and this is 20 years later.

Roche is not in the same position Kimmage was in 1990 - we have the second Tour winner scrubbed in 5 years and there has been one scandal after the other.
All Kimmage requested was that Roche 'make a stand' on someone caught and convicted.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Francois the Postman said:
If I wrote that you would be right. Again, for the hard of he hearing...

I am glad what he does. I am glad we have his book. I think he still has a role to play, one he seems keen to play. That doesn't mean I give him a free pass. he is asking Roche to do more than he did. Roche is still on the inside.



Now you are just making things up. I don't. Nor do I ask others to do this either. I do say that people are not obliged to walk your walk, simply because you feel it is the right thing to do, unless you are also willing to compensate them for the cost that your walk will inflict on them (and totally miss you).
Sorry if i didn't elaborate on the looking the other way comment. When i read your posts i see someone looking at both sides of the issue , which is good, but when it comes time to actually support the rules you come out on the side of inaction by virtue of your lack of support.In my Opinion.
To explain my opinion further, to me, you seem to always find a deragatory term for Kimmage, a wasp for instance, who is annoying. but then you claim to fully support that wasp's mission. Then you say Kimmage pussyfooted, but then you agreed that he should have, it goes on and on.
So to me, that is looking the other way, you take a dig, then you support.
It is a long winded approach to actually sitting on the fence and waiting for someone else to do the work.
So yes i made something up, i don't think you look the other way in the literal sense, i am saying i think you look the other way because you do so in a practical sense. You are digging so deep into details of why Kimmage did what he did and how it is different for Roche etc etc that the simple message to make your sport better by supporting rules against cheating is totally obscured.
If you believe I have a misplaced sense of "right" because i think people should actively support the rules they work under so be it.
I don't make the rules, Roche doesn't either, I doubt you or Kimmage or anyone else on this forum makes them. But i was taught to play by the rules, I guess to some this is a concept that is too black & white and they wish to look for gray to support their own actions or lack thereof. And consequently some of those people will also become supportive of people who follow the same road of rationalization for individual reasons.
 
Jul 1, 2009
2
0
0
Whilst I agree with Kimmage's stance on this, I can't help but see a double standard on the "Roche should say this/that"

Kimmage is a journalist, so it is a lot easier for him to have his view on cycling from the outside, maybe if he was to ask for the senior management at News International (his bosses) to be fired over the "News of the World" phone tapping scandal in the UK at the moment, in the same vociferous manner for damaging the reputation of real journalists such as himself, it would be akin to what he is asking the clean cyclists in the peloton to do?

I think targeting Nico Roche has a lot more to do with Paul Kimmage's past experience than "the truth"
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
nowhereman said:
Given the venom that is being directed at AC for what has been found in his system. And given the lack of ability to absolutey, without a shadow of a doubt, prove that he ingested this illegal substance intentionally, yet he is a recipient of unbridled rage from almost all on this thread. I'd say that if this is representative of the widespread sentiment amongst those that follow cycling, he truly ought to retire, as he originally mused near the beginning of this affair.
For me there is too much grey area to condemn him as absolutely as many on this thread (and many other previous threads)have done. This miniscule amount of Clenbuterol, which could have been ingested accidentally, has unleashed a rage that is truly disturbing to witness. And most of the rage has been fueled by speculation. Speculation that he has been transfusing. Speculation that he was involved in Operacion Puerto. Speculation that he has been doping all along, and that he is desperately, and unflinchingly lying every step of the way. Traces of clenbuterol, and all are shouting out Hallelujah that we have finally caught him. I'm surprised the death penalty hasn't been suggested. Have fun trashing me and my post. But I find it ALL very disgusting to watch, and very indicative of our culture at this time. Angry, unsympathetic, prejudiced. As far as I'm concerned, this sport has NO credibility, none. I will still watch, now and again. But I will certainly go riding with less regard for the professional level of the sport. And I will exclude myself from conversations that pass any final judgement on anybody that participates in this sport.....How disappointing it has all become.
Where is this rage that you see?

The most passionate people who discuss Contador are the ones like yourself who try and defend what has happened.

There is no rage from me - Contador was caught, it is not up to the authorities to prove the case, it is his - he has got his sanction (which he should take*).
We would see him in (less than) a year - no rage here.


(*He has already said he would appeal - and as he has to prove his case it is more likely we will see him return in 2012)
 
runninboy said:
OK this is an easy one. it is not why i say is right or my interprestation of right it is what the rules say is right.
The UCI has made the decision what is right and it is up to the riders to stand up and support the system that they compete under.
It has been shown that Contador cheated under the rules, he had a positive result. So stand up and back up the system.
Roche wasn't asked to do anything other than support the system he agreed to as a Pro.
There is but one choice, play by the rules. To rationalize "i did it to keep my job" is a crock. I guess Bernie Madoff is OK too, and any other criminal. I am sure they all need to eat and they were doing it to put food on the table.
Really really expensive food.

You don't need to be a freedom fighter to support the rules that are in place.
I must have missed the rule that states a rider must comment publicly on other riders testing positive.
Roche does however play by the ACTUAL rules, otherwise he would be accountable.

Kimmage wants riders to say "good riddance" to dopers.
I don't recall him taking that stance, past OR present, about Kelly.
Why not?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
musovelo said:
Whilst I agree with Kimmage's stance on this, I can't help but see a double standard on the "Roche should say this/that"

Kimmage is a journalist, so it is a lot easier for him to have his view on cycling from the outside, maybe if he was to ask for the senior management at News International (his bosses) to be fired over the "News of the World" phone tapping scandal in the UK at the moment, in the same vociferous manner for damaging the reputation of real journalists such as himself, it would be akin to what he is asking the clean cyclists in the peloton to do?

I think targeting Nico Roche has a lot more to do with Paul Kimmage's past experience than "the truth"
Ahem - front page Sunday Independent June 2002.
ON the front page of last week's Sunday Independent, we published a quotation from an interview given by Roy Keane to our writer Paul Kimmage.
The use of this quotation, isolated from the context of the interview, was a serious misjudgement and we sincerely apologise to Roy Keane and his family.

We also apologise to Paul Kimmage whose work we misrepresented.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
I must have missed the rule that states a rider must comment publicly on other riders testing positive.
Roche does however play by the ACTUAL rules, otherwise he would be accountable.

Kimmage wants riders to say "good riddance" to dopers.
I don't recall him taking that stance, past OR present, about Kelly.
Why not?
Then you should read this Kimmage article which mentions Kelly - and this particular quote is exacty what he feels Roche should do in his position writing for a national newspaper:

It wasn’t his style to go spitting in the soup. He would always adhere to the first rule of the peloton. But where does that leave you when the walls come tumbling down?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
andy1234 said:
I must have missed the rule that states a rider must comment publicly on other riders testing positive.
Roche does however play by the ACTUAL rules, otherwise he would be accountable.
when you enter the world of journalism one is expected to tell the truth by the general public.

Roche is being asked by Kimmage to write about it in his column.


andy1234 said:
Kimmage wants riders to say "good riddance" to dopers.
I don't recall him taking that stance, past OR present, about Kelly.
Why not?
Willy Voet did it? Kimmage is not required too. I suppose he should do a book on Anquetils doping too.

People want to 'shoot' Kimmage, he's the messenger. Go 'shoot' the proven dopers. go 'shoot' the cyclists who race alongside the proven dopers who do and say nothing.
 
Benotti69 said:
when you enter the world of journalism one is expected to tell the truth by the general public.

Roche is being asked by Kimmage to write about it in his column.




Willy Voet did it? Kimmage is not required too. I suppose he should do a book on Anquetils doping too.

People want to 'shoot' Kimmage, he's the messenger. Go 'shoot' the proven dopers. go 'shoot' the cyclists who race alongside the proven dopers who do and say nothing.
Kimmage is asking Roche to do something that he was and is still not prepared to do. Why not?
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
nowhereman said:
Given the venom that is being directed at AC for what has been found in his system. And given the lack of ability to absolutey, without a shadow of a doubt, prove that he ingested this illegal substance intentionally, yet he is a recipient of unbridled rage from almost all on this thread. I'd say that if this is representative of the widespread sentiment amongst those that follow cycling, he truly ought to retire, as he originally mused near the beginning of this affair.
For me there is too much grey area to condemn him as absolutely as many on this thread (and many other previous threads)have done. This miniscule amount of Clenbuterol, which could have been ingested accidentally, has unleashed a rage that is truly disturbing to witness. And most of the rage has been fueled by speculation. Speculation that he has been transfusing. Speculation that he was involved in Operacion Puerto. Speculation that he has been doping all along, and that he is desperately, and unflinchingly lying every step of the way. Traces of clenbuterol, and all are shouting out Hallelujah that we have finally caught him. I'm surprised the death penalty hasn't been suggested. Have fun trashing me and my post. But I find it ALL very disgusting to watch, and very indicative of our culture at this time. Angry, unsympathetic, prejudiced. As far as I'm concerned, this sport has NO credibility, none. I will still watch, now and again. But I will certainly go riding with less regard for the professional level of the sport. And I will exclude myself from conversations that pass any final judgement on anybody that participates in this sport.....How disappointing it has all become.
I do not want anyone to trash you or Alberto. Considering the circumstances he has a fair ban, it is a compromise which is fair to all parties. Speaking for 99o/o of the cycling public there is an outrage because there is a possibility that Contador doped in 2009 and unfairly ruined Master Armstrongs magical 8.
Secretly Kimmage wanted to see LANCE 8.

I hope Albertos ban is only for 1 year and he can return the 2011 towards returning Vuelta to GT#3.

As for Nic Roche Mr. Kimmage needs to let him develope towards his rightful prominence. Kimmage also needs to leave nics' dad alone and respect his privacy.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
andy1234 said:
Not sure what your point here is? Roy Keane made the complant did he not?
No he did not - Kimmage said he would refuse to write another article for the SI unless an apology was put in place to Keane.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
nowhereman said:
Given the venom that is being directed at AC for what has been found in his system. And given the lack of ability to absolutey, without a shadow of a doubt, prove that he ingested this illegal substance intentionally, yet he is a recipient of unbridled rage from almost all on this thread. I'd say that if this is representative of the widespread sentiment amongst those that follow cycling, he truly ought to retire, as he originally mused near the beginning of this affair.
For me there is too much grey area to condemn him as absolutely as many on this thread (and many other previous threads)have done. This miniscule amount of Clenbuterol, which could have been ingested accidentally, has unleashed a rage that is truly disturbing to witness. And most of the rage has been fueled by speculation. Speculation that he has been transfusing. Speculation that he was involved in Operacion Puerto. Speculation that he has been doping all along, and that he is desperately, and unflinchingly lying every step of the way. Traces of clenbuterol, and all are shouting out Hallelujah that we have finally caught him. I'm surprised the death penalty hasn't been suggested. Have fun trashing me and my post. But I find it ALL very disgusting to watch, and very indicative of our culture at this time. Angry, unsympathetic, prejudiced. As far as I'm concerned, this sport has NO credibility, none. I will still watch, now and again. But I will certainly go riding with less regard for the professional level of the sport. And I will exclude myself from conversations that pass any final judgement on anybody that participates in this sport.....How disappointing it has all become.
Personally I feel the reason there is venom is because the substance is not allowed in any measure. Therefor once it has been found the burden of proof is on the rider. Not the system. As a cattle farmer in the US i knew nothing of Clenbuterol.It didn't take me long to educate myself a little. Bottom line, the reason it is not used much in Europe or the US besides the illegality, is frankly there are legal products that are cheaper and do the job better
So it is questionable that it was ever used in the manner that AC hypothesized. Cattle in clinical studies have been shown to lose fat at such a rate to actually lose overall weight while on the drug. Next the half life is so short, when you factor in processing time(slaughter) and transportation the animal would have had to have been shot up immediately before slaughter to have much in its system. How is that possible? Not for a systemic way of raising cattle but possible in the case of CB used to treat a sickly animal.
still the question remains how the drug could have reached the meat when it supposedly remains in the liver? So even if the animal was dosed for whatever reason, in great amounts , immediately before slaughter there would be nothing in the meat itself.
So to me there is absolutely nothing plausible in the slightest in AC's alibi.
You wish to see otherwise, fine. But the rules would be inclined to force AC to prove his innocence not the other way around. In this case i think most people would look at the lack of plausability and determine the maximum sentence would not be unwarranted. Hence the general support for hanging AC out to dry.
I applaud you for being on having such an open mind. Unfortunately i guess i am a little biased by the fact that my family has been in the cattle business for decades and have never even heard of this drug until this year. And from all the evidence i see no reason, legal or not to use this drug in the production of cattle. It makes me highly suspicious of the amount of athletes who seem to ingest contaminatated meat with a drug that is basically illegal & useless and more expensive than legal implants that would do the job this is purported to do.
Hmmmmmmm
 
Dr. Maserati said:
Then you should read this Kimmage article which mentions Kelly - and this particular quote is exacty what he feels Roche should do in his position writing for a national newspaper:
You have provided a piece where Kimmage points out that Kelly was not prepared to criticise Riis. I was expecting a discussion on Kellys positive tests by Kimmage.
Kelly doped, Kimmage refused to comment directly, whats the difference?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY