Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[86TDFWinner]

Well in that case he's without question the greatest rider we've ever seen.

Simple as that.

Except...he'll never win more than 1-2 TDF's.

What does that make: Hinault/LeMond/Etc?

 

[elduggo]

As the sport has been littered with dopers since its inception, we can never - truly and with confidence - know what a clean rider looks like. Whether its Froome or someone yet to come, that person can never win in the eyes of those who seek dopers like McCarthy hunted Commies.

I think we can be fairly sure what it doesn't look like

 

[argyllflyer]

I think we can be fairly sure what it doesn't look like

With no point of reference for a proven clean champion (Le Mond excepted?), how do you know? Not guess or assume.

 

[elduggo]

With no point of reference for a proven clean champion (Le Mond excepted?), how do you know? Not guess or assume.

because we have a point of reference for a proven dirty champion (Contador).

 

[inri2000]

With no point of reference for a proven clean champion (Le Mond excepted?), how do you know? Not guess or assume.

http://powerful-problem-solving.com...win-the-2013-tour-de-france-part-3-conclusion

 

[argyllflyer]

because we have a point of reference for a proven dirty champion (Contador).

Which assumes that any doped rider will beat any clean athlete, ignoring any physiological differences between them.

Suspicion, innuendo, theory, assumption etc - that is not proof.

For all we know, Contador could have rode 2013 clean and perhaps was soundly beaten by a clean Froome. More theory and assumption.

 

[gillan1969]

http://powerful-problem-solving.com...win-the-2013-tour-de-france-part-3-conclusion

brilliant patter...like this guy

 

[bewildered]

it's the only way to keep the story half-straight.
they want us to believe two contradicting premises:
1. the bilharzia affected his performance as it ate his bloodcells
2. froome's BP pre- and post-2011 didn't show any irregularities.

I think Michelle has an issue with 1 because she knows that if he was 'riddled' to a very high level that his HB should have been affected enough to trigger the passport. She appears to have done her homework on his entire story and has probably learned a lot from reading on here.

I know Froome has said before that Bilharzia is the opposite of EPO and ate his red blood cells, affecting performance but the narrative has now moved to it being the almost constant, recurring illnesses and infections, setbacks etc which affected his performance, rather than anything to do with his blood values.

A dirty rider ought to be interested in his passport values. But so also should a rider who lives his 'whole life to try and get these margins, to push those limits higher', surely.

I can't believe Froome is that ignorant when it comes to testing either. He knew he was going for a UCI blood passport check with Dr Chunge but he asked Kimmage whether the samples are sent to the UCI or the team?

 

[Netserk]

it was the strongest performance by lance on a climb in tdf. sestriere was very slow compared to this. they got it right hoggie

Stronger than 'the look' and the Alpe TT?

 

[RownhamHill]

Out of interest, has Kimmage himself given any comment on his own reaction to the interview? It's hard to tell in the written word how the body language/tone of the questions is coming across - but it would be interesting to learn if, having spent three hours in the same room as them, whether he was now more or less certain about his suspicions.

 

[red_flanders]

Now he certainly wasn't at boarding school when he watched Hautcam "online" with Richie. But is he just making up stuff again?

Pantani wasn't sprinting. He was going backwards after one foolish attack. And although Armstrong was impressive he wasn't exactly "sprinting", he was leaping frogging group to group. I would say its one or Armstrong least "comical" performances. No way it was a Sierestre from 99.

Hautacam was the exact point at which I turned from "maybe he's doping" to "he's clearly doping". I've not seen anything quite like it since. For me, it was Armstrong's most ridiculous performance.

 

[red_flanders]

http://powerful-problem-solving.com...win-the-2013-tour-de-france-part-3-conclusion

Nice to see someone who understands the meaning of the word "evidence" in that piece, taking into account his performances and developmental track.

 

[The Hitch]

The lack of death might explain why it wasn't 'the advanced stages'.

I dont even know what advanced stages is supposed to mean.

How bilharzia effects people depends on the worm burden, their body, and what the parasite and eggs actually end up doing (some end up acting weird and going to other parts of the body) its not cancer which progresses in a set of stages. It affects some people worse than others The worms eventually die out after 6-8 years anyway (which given froomes comments from last year that he had bilharzia since 2005, should have been a few years ago already) in very rare exceptions it can go on for decades, so no people don't just die after a certain period.

Moreover the bigger problems bilharzia causes actually cannot be cured by simply removing the bilharzia since they are damage problems (the eggs damaging the liver) rather than interference once cured by removing the interference. Curing only stops the damage getting worse. But it by no means happens to everyone who has bilharzia.

So advanced stages is a bit obscure. And your comment about death, I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

 

[ontheroad]

Out of interest, has Kimmage himself given any comment on his own reaction to the interview? It's hard to tell in the written word how the body language/tone of the questions is coming across - but it would be interesting to learn if, having spent three hours in the same room as them, whether he was now more or less certain about his suspicions.

That for me will be the most interesting follow on from this interview. It may well be that Froome requested the interview in an attempt to try and charm one of the biggest anti doping crusaders and to attempt to be seen as having nothing to hide. Who knows, he may even have been steered in this direction by his main cheerleader Walsh. The timing of the interview is also self serving in that he knows full well that the speculation and scrutiny around him will intensify if he produces performances similar to last year in this years tour.

What I took from the interview most was:
1) Michelle's willingness to answer the questions or interject in an attempt to control the narrative.
2) The inconsistencies, contradictions and lack of clarity in some of the responses.

Kimmage offers no real clues as to how convinced or otherwise he was by Froomes responses, only to say that he found Froome to be a nice guy. However the vulture that is Kimmage does not suffer fools easily, and if his suspicions are raised following the interview, he will not refrain from calling him out. Kimmage has now put himself in the box seat as chief arbitrator on Froome and Walsh has become less relevant on anti doping matters since cuddling up to Sky.

 

[logical cranium]

Hautacam was the exact point at which I turned from "maybe he's doping" to "he's clearly doping". I've not seen anything quite like it since. For me, it was Armstrong's most ridiculous performance.

I run the number on Lance Armstrongs bigest wins. By far the highest VAM= Mount Ventoux in 2010. Hautacum 2000 not even close to limit. Thank you.

 

[elduggo]

Which assumes that any doped rider will beat any clean athlete, ignoring any physiological differences between them.

no it doesn't. Its referring specifically to 2 athletes. You're the one making generalisations and assumptions.

 

[elduggo]

Out of interest, has Kimmage himself given any comment on his own reaction to the interview? It's hard to tell in the written word how the body language/tone of the questions is coming across - but it would be interesting to learn if, having spent three hours in the same room as them, whether he was now more or less certain about his suspicions.

no, I'd imagine that was the whole point. Let the Fround's hang themselves and allow everyone make up their own minds.

which he did rather well.

 

[red_flanders]

I run the number on Lance Armstrongs bigest wins. By far the highest VAM= Mount Ventoux in 2010. Hautacum 2000 not even close to limit. Thank you.

I don't doubt Ventoux was higher. Just that everyone else had caught up to blood doping long before then. In 2000 he was destroying everyone.

What is "the limit" anyway?

 

[Benotti69]

As the sport has been littered with dopers since its inception, we can never - truly and with confidence - know what a clean rider looks like. Whether its Froome or someone yet to come, that person can never win in the eyes of those who seek dopers like McCarthy hunted Commies.

Boy you sure are hurting that Froome and his Fiancé have been caught spinning a web of lies and more lies.

Unlike McCarthy the clinic has no powers.

The sport of professional cycling being compared to communism!!!

Capitalism, yes.

 

[thehog]

I run the number on Lance Armstrongs bigest wins. By far the highest VAM= Mount Ventoux in 2010. Hautacum 2000 not even close to limit. Thank you.

That's my view as well. He was strong but Armstrong's Hautecam wasn't that awesome. I guess having Riis's effort from 1996 everything pales into comparison.

Still I'm surprised Dawg & Richie didn't watch the 2008 version. Ridden in normal weather and much more recent.

Anyway the real point I was making was Pantani wasn't "sprinting" he was going backwards. So the Dawg just puts salad dressing on everything he says.

 

[Benotti69]

Which assumes that any doped rider will beat any clean athlete, ignoring any physiological differences between them.

Suspicion, innuendo, theory, assumption etc - that is not proof.

For all we know, Contador could have rode 2013 clean and perhaps was soundly beaten by a clean Froome. More theory and assumption.

We have the history of the sport, including recent times, remember McQuaid only got the boot last year, the anti doping run by the federation that is there to promote the sport, the race organisers ambivalent attitude towards cheating, the drugs far ahead of testing, the culture to dope, teams run by ex dopers, doping doctors still working for teams, riders still training in places where testing is at best minimal.........

Are you reading the clinic at all?

 

[sniper]

A dirty rider ought to be interested in his passport values. But so also should a rider who lives his 'whole life to try and get these margins, to push those limits higher', surely.

I can't believe Froome is that ignorant when it comes to testing either. He knew he was going for a UCI blood passport check with Dr Chunge but he asked Kimmage whether the samples are sent to the UCI or the team?

as thehog said, that interview was as conclusive as a positive test.
the level of BS in there is just unreal.

 

[jens_attacks]

Stronger than 'the look' and the Alpe TT?

yes.

it was also the biggest time gap i remember on a single mtf to the other contenders in recent times. someone could verify it,not even marco. he put 2:20 to the next fastest on the climb of course apparently he was clean for it lol.

I run the number on Lance Armstrongs bigest wins. By far the highest VAM= Mount Ventoux in 2010. Hautacum 2000 not even close to limit. Thank you.

that's some scrrewed numbers then. and you can't compare vams of different climbs by the way. thank you

armstrong-hautacam is one of the most nuclear performances all time. it came in rain after marie blanque and a rather fast aubisque

 

[Benotti69]

I really hope that Interview was filmed by the rough rider documentary crew so that can splice it together with where he is lying from other clips.....but somehow i doubt it happened!

 

[Zam_Olyas]

yes.

it was also the biggest time gap i remember on a single mtf to the other contenders in recent times. someone could verify it,not even marco. he put 2:20 to the next fastest on the climb of course apparently he was clean for it lol.




that's some scrrewed numbers then. and you can't compare vams of different climbs by the way. thank you

armstrong-hautacam is one of the most nuclear performances all time. it came in rain after marie blanque and a rather fast aubisque

here is the climb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DmNMGEuI0

I have to watch the whole thing again..if i have the time. For me it has always been Sestriere