Kimmage on Contador

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
andy1234 said:
Kimmage is asking Roche to do something that he was and is still not prepared to do. Why not?
at the time A Rough Ride was published Sean Kelly had not failed a doping test.

Kimmage is saying he wants to a professional cyclist, Nico Roche who writes a column condemn another professional cyclist who tested positive and received a ban.
 

runninboy

BANNED
Jun 16, 2009
860
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.
Gosh that is funny!
I guess it is too much to show support for the rules you play under
Boy what was I thinking?????
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
andy1234 said:
Kimmage is asking Roche to do something that he was and is still not prepared to do. Why not?
You must have missed it - Kimmage quite clearly says "good riddance" to Contador and that is all he is asking Roche to do.

He is not asking him to "out" a teammate or even talk about someone who may be suspect, he is talking specifically about Contador who has just been convicted.
 
Aug 1, 2009
329
0
0
runninboy said:
There is but one choice, play by the rules.
Unless the rules include condemning those caught for violation, then by this set of ethics there's nothing wrong with saying nothing.

In order to have teeth, there would need to be something like a Military Academy Honor Code, making it an equal offense to knowingly tolerate those who do cheat. (That was, by the way, a relatively recent addition to the rules at West Point, put in place during MacArthur's tenure as commandant.)

And then you get arguments about "knowingly".

-dB
 
Benotti69 said:
at the time A Rough Ride was published Sean Kelly had not failed a doping test.

Kimmage is saying he wants to a professional cyclist, Nico Roche who writes a column condemn another professional cyclist who tested positive and received a ban.
Kelly tested positive in 1984.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
andy1234 said:
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?
My sincere apologies - I though it was Contador who was caught this week, not Kelly.

Kimmage wasn't even a Pro when Kelly tested positive - let alone a journalist.
Anytime he has been asked to comment on Kelly (and S.Roche) he has.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
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.
And there are people in this forum insinuating that Roche not wanting to is proof of doping.

That is wrong. VERY wrong.




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.
Perhaps we should take note of the fact that doping is not just a problem in cycing. THat a response to drug abuse in general and over time has shown us that some techniques are better at reducing the problem than others.

So demanding that other riders condemn AC, as if there are not two sides to the miniscule traces of clen in his body (an amount that cannot have produced a performance boost) and in a manner that Roche would know nothing about? That is called an emotional polemic - not anti-doping.

And the creeping insinuation of Shleck, who has similarly avoided the stew of AC are ANOTHER case in point.

Apparently, to be a professional cyclists, and race clean, you don't have to ACTUALLY DO THAT, you must adopt an emotional and accussatory stance on all other riders or at least enough of them that you cannot be seriously considered to have doped?

You not a clean rider if actually ride clean, you are only a clean rider if you denounce others?

We think this will solve a doping problem?

If there is a drug problem in a New York ghetto, do you think screaming about it will solve it? Do you think demanding others scream about it will solev it? Demand that others 'shoot' the people who are not screaming about it will help it?

What do police do in drug ridden neighborhoods? What do mayors and govenors do to confront these problems?

Are he various national agencies not busting up doping rings? In the governance of cycling and the IOC not closing gaps and developing test to proveably catch the cheats?

And when we catch the cheats, somehow the system is failing and we need to shoot Roche for not condemning AC? :eek:

Cycling, and PK an dthe other zealots, need to understand that centuries of jurisprudence should not be swept aside in favor of emotional appealling accussations devoid of proof or yellow journalism style accussations similarly devoid of proof.

Why PK, who no one in the sport will even talk to anymore, is percieved as knowing more about the situation than the SPanish federation, the UCI, WADA, and the rest of the peloton is beyond me.

Why fans tolerate or even invite this kind of behavior? Do we want a sport? Or do we want TMZ?
 
Dr. Maserati said:
You must have missed it - Kimmage quite clearly says "good riddance" to Contador and that is all he is asking Roche to do.

He is not asking him to "out" a teammate or even talk about someone who may be suspect, he is talking specifically about Contador who has just been convicted.

My point is, he is asking a current rider to do something that he wasn't prepared to do when he was a rider.
Not only that, he still isn't prepared to comment directly on Kellys doping.
I don't blame hime and I dont blame Roche for taking the same stance with his peers.
 
May 11, 2009
547
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
My sincere apologies - I though it was Contador who was caught this week, not Kelly.

Kimmage wasn't even a Pro when Kelly tested positive - let alone a journalist.
Anytime he has been asked to comment on Kelly (and S.Roche) he has.
And here I THOUGHT there was an appeals process that had to work itself out before guilt could be determined.

I also THOUGHT that the one year ban, rather than two, was a pretty strong acknowledgement that this was more about the 'strict liability' rule than about the actuality of doping.

I also THOUGHT the point of demanding someone else condemn something .... well, that opens one up to the application of the same standard.

Ergo, by the standard of some 'fans' of cycling, PK is a doper because he did not condemn Sean Kelly - nor indeed as he condemned every rider in the peloton by name - just accussed every last one of them of doping without a shread of evidence ...

which must be why they were ALL found guilty this week? :rolleyes:

Do you want to play by your rules and standards? Or shall we play by the established rules and standards?
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
He didn't say "good riddance" back in 1990.....because no-one was caught!
I get what you are saying, I don't think you get what I am saying Dr.

If I see someone cheating, or fix a race, I have to decide there and then how I react. *I* caught them. It is immaterial if the rest of the world knows. He toed the line, as a rider. He was in his reality, and he swallowed its unwritten rules too.

He climbed on his bike. Time after time. He probably felt worse for it than most. But he is now wants people to act/rise/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, who are still on their bikes.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
gree0232 said:
So demanding that other riders condemn AC, as if there are not two sides to the miniscule traces of clen in his body (an amount that cannot have produced a performance boost) and in a manner that Roche would know nothing about? That is called an emotional polemic - not anti-doping.
So again - how much clenbuterol is performance enhancing?

gree0232 said:
And when we catch the cheats, somehow the system is failing and we need to shoot Roche for not condemning AC? :eek:
In the fist quoted paragraph you try and say that the Clen was not perfomnace enhacing and then in this you say "when we catch cheats"...... which is it?

gree0232 said:
Why PK, who no one in the sport will even talk to anymore, is percieved as knowing more about the situation than the SPanish federation, the UCI, WADA, and the rest of the peloton is beyond me.

Why fans tolerate or even invite this kind of behavior? Do we want a sport? Or do we want TMZ?
You must have missed the Cavendish interview or the interview with Brad or this interview with Brailsford, that were done in the last year.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
My sincere apologies - I though it was Contador who was caught this week, not Kelly.

Kimmage wasn't even a Pro when Kelly tested positive - let alone a journalist.
Anytime he has been asked to comment on Kelly (and S.Roche) he has.

Kelly was positive in 1984 and 1988 so yes kimmage was a pro at the time.
Show me a comment from Kimmage that criticises Kelly or Roche doping. I haven't seen one.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Benotti69 said:
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.
We agree [hence a pre-emptive: granted, a different scale].

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
I didn't say job, I said role. He stopped being a cyclist and became something else. The key point is that he stepped up to the plate after changing roles. If you want to nit-pick about securing, you can have that one.

I think there is a massive difference between what was being taken then and what is being used now.
We totally agree.

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?
This is where facts become speculation though. We assume it will play out that way. You won't be able to guarantee that to the mugger who steps up to the plate. It is likely/possible/one-way-it-could-go. There are alternative outcomes still in play.

Still, we assess the potential the same way, I think. I have made this point very, at length, as usual, on many occasions. I think, now more than ever, a small group of individuals can make a change.

But at a cost to themselves even if they get their way. Still. Not to mention what would happen if it backfires.

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.
Or he could only name the people he knew well, possibly cared about in one-way-or-another, but realising full well he would be unable to make it stick to folk he suspected to be equally guilty, but who he couldn't prove anything against.

I think not naming the close ones was an internal compromise, wanting to tell the story, but not wanting to drag the select few, who he had complex relations with, down with him, guaranteed. Life ain't black and white. people have conflicting loyalties, interests and motivations all over the place.

Kimmage will know why he didn't, at the time. But in the end, he didn't and he could have. I am sure he was asked. If he wants to be his own judge what is apt, fair and effective, and what isn't, others can be their own too.

Not so much an argument against Kimmage, but mostly against those that say that because Kimmage did [x] then, riders now should do [x] too. Kimmage never did [x] whilst being the rider.

I dont think wasp is an apt analogy.
I care about what I write, but not that much. Just ignore the words and try to hear what I am saying. A wasp is a small thing that be a annoyance to something well above its size, and will persist until it gets its way (the big thing moves out of the way). Or it is a small thing that can deliver a big sting. Both appear to apply to Kimmage to me.

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.
I will leave it totally in the middle who uses what to what extent. I have opinions, but I don't know, and I certainly have no proof.

For me the similarity is this: they were/are both cyclists, picked the profession to make a living to the best of their ability. Both operate in the environment they found when they arrived at the scene. They are different playgrounds, for sure. In the end, both are people, humans who make decisions that make most sense seen from the situation you are in, not based on outsiders reading of it.

As far as I can tell both are driven mostly by the desire to make a living in cycling. I can prove little about the other calls they make, getting there, and whilst being there, beyond what is in the public domain, I do make guesstimations.

But, whichever way you flip it, Roche is still on the merry-go-round. Kimmage opened the book "on his own" after he quit (in disgust and/or disappointed).

I leave it aside what Roche internal motivation or attitude towards dope in the sport is. Roche, right now, is sitting in a much tougher spot to operate from, then Kimmage had when he opened the book.

I am not talking about how the rest of the world will react. It is what happens on the inside, once a rider swims against a stream, that affects all riders who have to make that call, as direct as it comes.

I bet that most riders in the peleton are pragmatists. Some natural cheats too. But most: not good, not bad. Just getting on with being a cyclist, earning a living, taking care of their own family.

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.
I know. I have no problem with Kimmage saying good riddance to anyone, informed or not. What I have a problem with is people on the outside telling what other people on the inside should do, when we are still talking about people making a living for them and their families. It is easy to be a sofa general and move pawns across a board when it ain't your family's next meal or kid's education or whatever, that is at stake.

Should and could. Big difference.

I keep saying, I applaud those that swim against the stream. BUT I don't condemn those that don't. what I do I condemn: those that condemn those that don't, from their comfortable and pain-less "if they don't they are the problem" spots.

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....
I never lost sight of that. Who did?

I am the same. Why are riders still silent? I also think it speaks volumes about something. But, at the same time, I believe it isn't for me to decide what they should do instead, or worse, blame them for not doing so.

I just have some reservations about the way some people seized upon Kimmage as a way to target riders, without accepting that it ain't black and white, and that Kimmage is no black and white guy either. Certainly not then, as a rider.

To be honest, right now, I think (the vast majority of) individual riders still can't force the issue. The bigger the group, the bigger the chance, sure. But we hope to much, I fear, if we think enough riders really care that much.

That might change when their job is becoming more tricky to perform or when the outside leans in a bit tougher. When their income is put under pressure. I can't see where the critical mass would come from, right now. Which leaves individuals with less options than you'd wish they had.

For me it still has to start with a genuine crack in the system, first. Still. Even after "all this".

There was a time when I thought, surely this must change, riders won't accept it. something is too obviously wrong and heading in one direction only. In the early 80s. I have had plenty of "surely now" moments too.

Contador guilty? Unless something else happens, this will not bring anything down. "We" didn't really care about Contador to start with.

We'll need to see genuine proof that it isn't a string of cheaters, initiatives by individuals or small groups that try to defraud the lot, but that it is pretty much unavoidable. Corruption that spans the system. Not the just riders bit.

Once again I have a glimmer of hope. Maybe, for the first time, someone has the ability and authority, to expose crucial bits of the puzzle. I hope it puts proof on the table that undermines the UCI, or at least a UCI circle. Proof that testing is laughably ad-hoc and inadequate. Even if it probably will only be a sideshow and circumstantial to the actual case the Feds are hoping to prosecute. Hopefully it will show more than "just what they are after". If that doesn't happen.....I don't even wanna consider that.

If it happens, that's the crack that few individuals could seize upon, and what would finally allow them to kick well above their weight.

Interesting times ahead, I guess.

You do get that what I write is less about Kimmage, and more about the riders currently riding, like Roche? I have nothing against Kimmage, I think he has a bit-role to play too, if he wants it. And at least he has a role opportunity, I don't.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
gree0232 said:
And there are people in this forum insinuating that Roche not wanting to is proof of doping.

That is wrong. VERY wrong.
when your sport gets regularly reported in the news pages as much as the sports pages things are not going well for your sport. surely thos who profess to love it in their articles will comment about those who are making the news pages rather the sports pages.

gree0232 said:
Perhaps we should take note of the fact that doping is not just a problem in cycing. THat a response to drug abuse in general and over time has shown us that some techniques are better at reducing the problem than others.

So demanding that other riders condemn AC, as if there are not two sides to the miniscule traces of clen in his body (an amount that cannot have produced a performance boost) and in a manner that Roche would know nothing about? That is called an emotional polemic - not anti-doping.

And the creeping insinuation of Shleck, who has similarly avoided the stew of AC are ANOTHER case in point.

Apparently, to be a professional cyclists, and race clean, you don't have to ACTUALLY DO THAT, you must adopt an emotional and accussatory stance on all other riders or at least enough of them that you cannot be seriously considered to have doped?

You not a clean rider if actually ride clean, you are only a clean rider if you denounce others?

We think this will solve a doping problem?

If there is a drug problem in a New York ghetto, do you think screaming about it will solve it? Do you think demanding others scream about it will solev it? Demand that others 'shoot' the people who are not screaming about it will help it?

What do police do in drug ridden neighborhoods? What do mayors and govenors do to confront these problems?

Are he various national agencies not busting up doping rings? In the governance of cycling and the IOC not closing gaps and developing test to proveably catch the cheats?

And when we catch the cheats, somehow the system is failing and we need to shoot Roche for not condemning AC? :eek:

Cycling, and PK an dthe other zealots, need to understand that centuries of jurisprudence should not be swept aside in favor of emotional appealling accussations devoid of proof or yellow journalism style accussations similarly devoid of proof.

Why PK, who no one in the sport will even talk to anymore, is percieved as knowing more about the situation than the SPanish federation, the UCI, WADA, and the rest of the peloton is beyond me.

Why fans tolerate or even invite this kind of behavior? Do we want a sport? Or do we want TMZ?
i dont see how NY drugs problems relate to supposedly clean living athletes who advertise their sponsors on their athletic prowess.

but you say that shouting about wont solve it, why not? if everyone condemns it, it will mean if nothing is done people after all the condemnation people leave that sport to find others.

In Italy for example people have started to stop going to watch games of football even thought the prices are very cheap compared to the english football league. why, the corruption. The clubs bribing referees was a huge scandal a few years ago and now the game is a big downturn.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
runninboy said:
...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.
If that is what irritates you, then I think you are getting irritated by reading the wrong thing in it. My way of being derogatory isn't yours, it seems.
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.
You are also missing one point. I am not here to campaign for a rule change here, nor am I here to support riders who I wish well.

I am here for discussion. To talk about what I observe, and figure out what and how others see things. My writings here have no other function that that, to me.

So if you feel it isn't a call to action, or supporting the cause. Uhm, it wasn't meant to be. It is meant to be reflective.

If I was an a campaign and thought I could genuinely change things, trust me, I would not be here now, on the CyclingNews forum, arguing about the position Kimmage has adopted.

If you think anyone here is doing work, and I am just a fence-sitter, as you put it, I am deliberating whether to crack a wee smile, or whether to point out I became a volunteer mod.

Fence-sitting and the ability to look both ways at the same time without getting lost (too often) aren't always obstacles.

If you feel that this is one of the many places that in the scheme of things all help, you have a point too, and if that's your own angle, my best wishes to you.

It's not why I am here, and I am certainly not going to drop half my considerations as it is might hinder a (worthy) campaign. I don't think I matter that much.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
gree0232 said:
And here I THOUGHT there was an appeals process that had to work itself out before guilt could be determined.

I also THOUGHT that the one year ban, rather than two, was a pretty strong acknowledgement that this was more about the 'strict liability' rule than about the actuality of doping.

I also THOUGHT the point of demanding someone else condemn something .... well, that opens one up to the application of the same standard.

Ergo, by the standard of some 'fans' of cycling, PK is a doper because he did not condemn Sean Kelly - nor indeed as he condemned every rider in the peloton by name - just accussed every last one of them of doping without a shread of evidence ...

which must be why they were ALL found guilty this week? :rolleyes:

Do you want to play by your rules and standards? Or shall we play by the established rules and standards?
An appeal process?
Ok - I want you to sit down when you are working this one out - what would Alberto be appealing??

To the highlighted - you obviously haven't read PK's book, he admitted his own doping.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Francois the Postman said:
I get what you are saying, I don't think you get what I am saying Dr.

If I see someone cheating, or fix a race, I have to decide there and then how I react. *I* caught them. It is immaterial if the rest of the world knows. He toed the line, as a rider. He was in his reality, and he swallowed its unwritten rules too.

He climbed on his bike. Time after time. He probably felt worse for it than most. But he is now wants people to act/rise/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, who are still on their bikes.
With Kimmage we are talking about the 80's and early 90's here - even publishing Rough Ride Kimmage was ridiculed by the sport and that did not change until Festina in 1998.

What Kimmage did in 1990 was the lead out for riders (whoever they are) to speak out as the sport was (and is) exposed for what it is.


As for bringing up fixing the criteriums - Kimmage has said he understands and accepts why it was done - these weren't races, these were crowd pleasers - so he is not going to cry foul over something he agrees with.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
andy1234 said:
Kelly was positive in 1984 and 1988 so yes kimmage was a pro at the time.
Show me a comment from Kimmage that criticises Kelly or Roche doping. I haven't seen one.
I only learnt of Kellys 88 positive last year (and the link it is on is from 2000) -it was not reported in the media at the time.

Kimmage has critized them both - it is in the revison of his book.
If Kimmage did not critise Roch why is there such anomisty between Roche and Kimmage?

AS: Did Roche and Kelly ever reconcile with you?

PK: No. I get along ok with Sean, but I don't have a very good relationship with Stephen. Not at all.

AS: That's terrible.

PK: It is sad, but that's life, isn't' it? We make choices, and we live by those choices. I made a choice, Stephen's made a choice, and he's got to live with the consequences of his choice and I have to live with the consequences of mine. I'm comfortable with what I did, and I'm sure he's comfortable with what he did. But unfortunately that doesn't mean we're going to speak to each other again.
 

flicker

BANNED
Aug 17, 2009
4,153
0
0
What Kimmage, LeMond and Walshe need to realize that cycling is bigger than them, bigger than Ireland, GB, Texas Espana. Their race was over many moons ago. They really want to tear the sport apart, for their own agenda.
If they had their heads about them they would work on cleaning up Olympic sport and promoting International Cycling.
Their small mindedness, Anglo weenieness to me is appalling.
 
gree0232 said:
And there are people in this forum insinuating that Roche not wanting to is proof of doping.

That is wrong. VERY wrong.






Perhaps we should take note of the fact that doping is not just a problem in cycing. THat a response to drug abuse in general and over time has shown us that some techniques are better at reducing the problem than others.

So demanding that other riders condemn AC, as if there are not two sides to the miniscule traces of clen in his body (an amount that cannot have produced a performance boost) and in a manner that Roche would know nothing about? That is called an emotional polemic - not anti-doping.

And the creeping insinuation of Shleck, who has similarly avoided the stew of AC are ANOTHER case in point.

Apparently, to be a professional cyclists, and race clean, you don't have to ACTUALLY DO THAT, you must adopt an emotional and accussatory stance on all other riders or at least enough of them that you cannot be seriously considered to have doped?

You not a clean rider if actually ride clean, you are only a clean rider if you denounce others?

We think this will solve a doping problem?

If there is a drug problem in a New York ghetto, do you think screaming about it will solve it? Do you think demanding others scream about it will solev it? Demand that others 'shoot' the people who are not screaming about it will help it?

What do police do in drug ridden neighborhoods? What do mayors and govenors do to confront these problems?

Are he various national agencies not busting up doping rings? In the governance of cycling and the IOC not closing gaps and developing test to proveably catch the cheats?

And when we catch the cheats, somehow the system is failing and we need to shoot Roche for not condemning AC? :eek:

Cycling, and PK an dthe other zealots, need to understand that centuries of jurisprudence should not be swept aside in favor of emotional appealling accussations devoid of proof or yellow journalism style accussations similarly devoid of proof.

Why PK, who no one in the sport will even talk to anymore, is percieved as knowing more about the situation than the SPanish federation, the UCI, WADA, and the rest of the peloton is beyond me.

Why fans tolerate or even invite this kind of behavior? Do we want a sport? Or do we want TMZ?
Still not a fan of spelling that word correctly I see.

Anyway, have you actually read much of Kimmage's work in the last twenty years? Have you read his book and many of his articles?
You realise he has interviewed a number of cyclists including Wiggins, Cavendish, Vaughters, Millar, Lim, VandeVelde, Peiper and Lemond.

You still seem to believe that these governing bodies above actually do a good job. Yet you were the one last week praising the UCI for uncovering Operation Puerto.
You need to address specific examples of Paul's work which show him making accusations 'devoid of proof'. If they are as plentiful as you seem to think, then it will be easy for you.
 
flicker said:
What Kimmage, LeMond and Walshe need to realize that cycling is bigger than them, bigger than Ireland, GB, Texas Espana. Their race was over many moons ago. They really want to tear the sport apart, for their own agenda.If they had their heads about them they would work on cleaning up Olympic sport and promoting International Cycling.
Their small mindedness, Anglo weenieness to me is appalling.
What's their agenda tell me?

You seem happy to let them all dope up to their eyeballs? They are not - who's wrong here?
 
Mar 17, 2009
294
0
9,030
Dr. Maserati said:
You must have missed it - Kimmage quite clearly says "good riddance" to Contador and that is all he is asking Roche to do.

He is not asking him to "out" a teammate or even talk about someone who may be suspect, he is talking specifically about Contador who has just been convicted.
As I read the various opinions/post others have written I find my self questioning some and validating others, I think Postman said it best: if anybody feels to come forward and demand/announce any of the dopers/would be dopers big fish small fish, that's entirely fine so long as they are prepared to endure whatever consequences that action may bring, my dislike or preference of certain riders set a mood and belief/disbelief depending of what I feel toward such riders, imagine if I tell all of you to agree and to post based on that it would be ludicrous from my part, everyone see what they want to see, and that's fine, I think is the point of forums and it's various threads ultimately.
 
Oct 29, 2009
2,578
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
With Kimmage we are talking about the 80's and early 90's here - even publishing Rough Ride Kimmage was ridiculed by the sport and that did not change until Festina in 1998.

What Kimmage did in 1990 was the lead out for riders (whoever they are) to speak out as the sport was (and is) exposed for what it is.
Aye. We don't disagree about anything regarding Kimmage's work here Dr. I am glad he wrote the book.

But it wasn't exactly a hush-hush secret that was exposed out of the blue, with no-one any wiser.

Plenty happened in the run-up to those years Kimmage years, even during the Kimmage years.

Maybe it also mattered where you were living and what you were exposed to, or keen to, find the nitty-gritty. Or maybe we have a different experience road, making different events "key" moments. Kimmage is not a huge blip on my radar, to be frank. I was old when it became 1990 ;-)

As for bringing up fixing the criteriums - Kimmage has said he understands and accepts why it was done - these weren't races, these were crowd pleasers - so he is not going to cry foul over something he agrees with.
Yup. But I know that there are some local boys who were dead keen to actually race them to win and are in for a bit of shock when they find out what a circus it frequently is. and who are put in their place right away by those that insist they are crowd pleasers. And who all play stumm. So Kimmage plays by the rules he finds in his work-place too, and helps to enforce them on the group too (active or silent). It isn't just about the rules on paper. He might see them as crowd pleasers and treat them that way. It denies others their opportunity.

But indeed, a different class of "cheating", I admitted that on the spot. And I get the reasons why too.

Maybe I should have talked about buying wins, or buying the help from other teams, or buying their inactivity for a day when talking about race fixing. It isn't just doping that ruins the competition. But it certainly is effective, I guess.

I brought crits up to underline that we all tend to take the workplace as it comes when we enter it, with its written and unwritten rules. Most of us don't challenge the group but accepts its way "of going about it". Rightly or wrongly.
 
Dr. Maserati said:
I only learnt of Kellys 88 positive last year (and the link it is on is from 2000) -it was not reported in the media at the time.

Kimmage has critized them both - it is in the revison of his book.
If Kimmage did not critise Roch why is there such anomisty between Roche and Kimmage?
Kelly's 88 test was common knowledge. It doesn't get much of a mention subsequently because he didn't receive a ban.

Roche fell out with Kimmage from the moment Rough Ride was published. Its more a testament to Roche's mentality than anything said specifically about him by Kimmage.

I dont recall a criticism of either Roches or Kellys doping history in any version of Rough Ride.
Or anywhere else for that matter, but I would be interested to see it, if its out there.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts