Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[the asian]

That doesn't appear to be true. There are about 15 separate threads in the clinic right now about Sky, Wiggins, and Froome. I did a search with Garmin, Ryder, and Hesjedal as search terms (for words in thread title) and there are no corresponding threads after the Giro in the clinic but I'll look more for the one mentioned (that's 1 vs. 15). There are no threads in the clinic that contain Hesjedal or Ryder in the title.

Kimmage's article is also generic - he uses base rates, nothing specific about Sky other than Leinders, which could be found with most other teams (e.g., Garmin's hiring of Lim post Phonak), RSNT, etc. Two non-Sky teams had positives in the Tour or a rider arrested, another team is being investigated (europcar), and nothing specific has been alleged against Sky - even Kimmage says it.

It is selective attention due to dislike of the team. hopeful schadenfreude.

"Some 86 per cent of Tour de France winners since Tommy Simpson’s death have been tarnished or implicated by doping. There is nothing to suggest that Bradley Wiggins achieved yesterday’s historic victory through anything other than talent and hard work. But at this time of glory, why does Team Sky leave itself open to insinuation by employing Leinders?" -Kimmage

Search about Christian Vande Velde's interview, or search for posts from JV 1973, and you'll be able to find the thread.

People are talking about Sky now because that's the most recent relevant topic.

 

[Digger]

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on...candals-that-have-dogged-this-sport-1-2426229

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I have no irrational, visceral or emotional reaction to the team.

Sure, they have some riders with questionable backgrounds, and sure the sponsor has had some ethical issues. But neither of these is all that important here.

They got my attention not because of their doping stance, but because their performance is the same as arguing 1+1 = 7.

As hard as I try, I cannot make it add up.

You speak pretty well for me, actually!

I'm a long term Wiggo fan, but this does not disguise the fact that something doesn't quite add up at Sky on face value. Kimmage is right to ask the questions, and there may be a perfectly legitimate answer, but the answers so far about Doc Leinders (sp) have not helped Sky's cause.

I view Kimmage's continual banging of the drum re doping as ongoing therapy for him to help him overcome the trauma of his pro career. I don't think it will do him any good, as trying to eliminate doping in cycling is harder than making water flow uphill. He doesn't seem any happier than he was before now that Lance is going to what he's due, and if Sky/Wiggo go down he'll still be a miserable b*gger, focusing on the next most obvious target. I think he's a great writer when not focusing on doping; his ongoing campaign is plain boring for those of us who accept pro cycling for what it is.

 

[Franklin]

Your claims aren't strawman - but the above argument is.
Plenty of other threads here if you want to discuss other teams - just do a search. Schelk, Garmin, RSNT, they're all there.

This thread is about SKY because that is who Kimmage was talking about.

Sorry, his claims are most definitely strawmen!

1. He attacks the clinic for not being critical outside Sky. This is not claimed by anyone at all. So it's definitely a strawman!
2. He claims that there is no absolute proof Sky dopes. I explicitely stated it's not absolute proof, yet he used it many times to react to my posts. This makes it a clear strawman.

Masterracer clearly is here to derail the thread by attributing nonsense claims and attacking those claims. And if you fall for it and discuss the claim he can just milk it. I called him out and he keeps on doing it (yet again!).

Mark my words, he will do it again in a few pages, as he just keeps on doing this.

And yes, I put this in the opene. I asked a few times, now 'm through with him and want to warn others here about his "debating" techniques.

 

[Franklin]

Ah, I get you, Leiders is the guy who taps the blood! And then there is a other guy filling it at the tour. That must be the other doctor on the tour roster then. Maybe a tread on him? There also is the possibility that Leiders does a Ferrari and is at the site in a camper van?

You let your imagination run wild here

1. I simply answered your claim why Leinders doesn't need to be a the TdF to have a possible influence. Or did you think that Ferrari put the needle in personally?
2. Attaching a bloodbag is not very dificult and cn be done by anyone with a modicum of training. You don't need to have a highprofile doctor to do just that.

But I'm sure you will see the need to ridiculize it more.

 

[mastersracer]

Sorry, his claims are most definitely strawmen!

1. He attacks the clinic for not being critical outside Sky. This is not claimed by anyone at all. So it's definitely a strawman!
2. He claims that there is no absolute proof Sky dopes. I explicitely stated it's not absolute proof, yet he used it many times to react to my posts. This makes it a clear strawman.

Masterracer clearly is here to derail the thread by attributing nonsense claims and attacking those claims. And if you fall for it and discuss the claim he can just milk it. I called him out and he keeps on doing it (yet again!).

Mark my words, he will do it again in a few pages, as he just keeps on doing this.

And yes, I put this in the opene. I asked a few times, now 'm through with him and want to warn others here about his "debating" techniques.

These forums are for open discussion. I don't engage in ad hominem attacks. Your statement about me derailing threads is a rhetorical move - I am responding to the continual irrational statements made about Sky.

Re 1, that is not my position. I stated that Sky has received nonproportional criticism and speculated that it was due to some other underlying factor. This is consistent with many models of motivated discourse, such as Haidt's social intuitionism, Weston's political discourse model, Sperber's arugmentative theory.

The fact is, Kimmage's article and the degree of suspicion against Sky is an irrational position. To state, as does Kimmage, that he has no evidence of doping, and yet believe (suspect) Sky is doping, is the definition of irrational - unwarranted belief.

Re 2, I never stated my position in terms of 'absolute proof' for the simple reason that 'absolute proof' only holds for deductive arguments with axiomatic postulates and truth-preserving inferences. In other words, a priori, deductive arguments. Here, we are talking about inductive inference. I stated that there was no evidence that Sky was doping. Evidence is information that is used to raise conditional probabilities (a belief is conditionalized on that evidence), or subjective degrees of belief, as investigated by someone like Isaac Levi (e.g, The Covenant of Reason: Rationality and the Commitments of Thought). Evidence provides rational, epistemic warrant for beliefs. In the case of Sky, there is simply no specific evidence of doping. We can see this because all the claims of doping are unconditional probabilities - base rates, as in Kimmage's statement about the frequency of doping since Simpson.

The bulleted list of points you raised are not specific to Sky but are applied to Sky only, which again is irrational. For example, the fact that EPO microdosing is undetectable (your point) is not evidence for Sky doping. To use it against Sky is an instance of confirmation bias, which is a main feature of Sperber's theory - motivated, irrational discourse.

Further, the highlighting of Sky - as in Kimmage's article - requires irrationally discounting disconfirming evidence, such as metrics of absolute performance, which are entirely consistent with non-doping.

A rational, Bayesian observer looking to see whether there is evidence upon which to conditionalize the belief that Sky is doping would not find such evidence. The irony is that Bayes was British and yet the rational inquiry bearing his name is abandoned for irrational speculation.

 

[Runitout]

Where does Kimmage state he believes that Sky are doping?

I thought he was careful to say the opposite. (Edit - I see, a quick edit of your post, to avoid an answer you can't give).

As for Bayesian thought, I thought it was the distinctly Bayesian approach of some of the resident Clinicians that you object to. "I am not sure that word means what you think it means".

These forums are for open discussion. I don't engage in ad hominem attacks. Your statement about me derailing threads is a rhetorical move - I am responding to the continual irrational statements made about Sky.

Re 1, that is not my position. I stated that Sky has received nonproportional criticism and speculated that it was due to some other underlying factor. This is consistent with many models of motivated discourse, such as Haidt's social intuitionism, Weston's political discourse model, Sperber's arugmentative theory.

The fact is, Kimmage's article and the degree of suspicion against Sky is an irrational position. To state, as does Kimmage, that he has no evidence of doping, and yet believe Sky is doping, is the definition of irrational - unwarranted belief.

Re 2, I never stated my position in terms of 'absolute proof' for the simple reason that 'absolute proof' only holds for deductive arguments with axiomatic postulates and truth-preserving inferences. In other words, a priori, deductive arguments. Here, we are talking about inductive inference. I stated that there was no evidence that Sky was doping. Evidence is information that is used to raise conditional probabilities (a belief is conditionalized on that evidence), or subjective degrees of belief, as investigated by someone like Isaac Levi (e.g, The Covenant of Reason: Rationality and the Commitments of Thought). Evidence provides rational, epistemic warrant for beliefs. In the case of Sky, there is simply no specific evidence of doping. We can see this because all the claims of doping are unconditional probabilities - base rates, as in Kimmage's statement about the frequency of doping since Simpson.

The bulleted list of points you raised are not specific to Sky but are applied to Sky only, which again is irrational. For example, the fact that EPO microdosing is undetectable (your point) is not evidence for Sky doping. To use it against Sky is an instance of confirmation bias, which is a main feature of Sperber's theory - motivated, irrational discourse.

Further, the highlighting of Sky - as in Kimmage's article - requires irrationally discounting disconfirming evidence, such as metrics of absolute performance, which are entirely consistent with non-doping.

A rational, Bayesian observer looking to see whether there is evidence upon which to conditionalize the belief that Sky is doping would not find such evidence. The irony is that Bayes was British and yet the rational inquiry bearing his name is abandoned for irrational speculation.

 

[mastersracer]

Where does Kimmage state he believes that Sky are doping?

I thought he was careful to say the opposite. (Edit - I see, a quick edit of your post, to avoid an answer you can't give).

As for Bayesian thought, I thought it was the distinctly Bayesian approach of some of the resident Clinicians that you object to. "I am not sure that word means what you think it means".

My edit was to clarify that by belief I meant an unwarranted suspicion (as opposed to a warranted belief in light of new information). The entire point of Kimmage's article is to invoke suspicion. The responses here to it indicate it was received as such (language such as 'smoking gun'). Kimmage uses a number of journalistic rhetorical devices to achieve this without explicitly having to make the charge:

"it seems a strange irony that the only time Wiggins has looked under pressure in this Tour was when he was asked about doping."

"the faster Bradley pedalled, the less we heard from the angry young man we loved."

"What happened to that weighty tome in Brailsford’s office with all those lofty ambitions and goals? What happened to zero tolerance? What happened to openness and transparency? What happened to only hiring British doctors who had worked outside the sport?"

"Here’s the question again: Was this Tour de France clean? Here’s the tragedy: I don’t know if the public’s answers would have changed since 2006."

If Kimmage's article wasn't intended to raise suspicion, what was its purpose?

I understand Bayesian models just fine and publish peer-reviewed articles utilizing such models for sensory cue combination. If you want to get into a debate over fixing priors, that would be fine, but my reference was to the general method of updating beliefs in a warranted manner.

 

[Ferminal]

Where is the evidence that Sky are clean?

 

[pmcg76]

To me there is a real sense of deja-vu about this Kimmage article.

Back at the finish of a supposedly cleaner Tour(remember 1999) Kimmage penned a somewhat similar article for ProCycling magazine in which he witheld the universal praise that was being showered on Armstrong and named Christophe Bassons as his hero of the 99 race. He never actually accused Armstrong of anything and admits a lack of proof but was clearly unwilling to sing his praises. The subtext was clear.

At that time there was absolutely nothing in the public domain against Armstrong in regards to doping other than the spat with Bassons and his preformances. No knowledge of dodgy doctors, no open admiration for dopers and US Postal were not yet the dominant team they would become in the Tour. Wiggins never had a Bassons moment but his meltdown in regards to the questions on twitter comes pretty close. Despite any lack of evidence, Kimmage called it as he seen it.

Putting the two articles together now seems rather eerie and Kimmage only raises suspicion if he has genuine doubts. I think Kimmage was once a big fan of Wiggins and his approach to cycling but that clearly seems to have waned in recent times. Why?

Kimmage was on the button before when everyone else was raising a new legend. What are the odds on him being right again??

It is also amazing how those who are defending Sky are using the exact same arguments and tactics as those who defended Armstrong for years. Change the names of the riders and teams and these posters would seem undistinguishable form each other. Deja-Vu again.

 

[Benotti69]

It is very simple and I think Kimmage's article is the most concise and easy to understand but with the beautiful suggestions that all is not what it seems at Sky.

If people want to wait till the 'Glove fits moment' fine but move on from the clinic, because if Kimmage suggests it looks like a duck and has started to walk like a duck and lately has been quacking like a duck.....

pmcg76, I would love to see that article and compare it with the dailymail one.

 

[Sigmund]

Where is the evidence that Sky are clean?

Showing that you really havent understood the point. How can you prove that you are clean?

No positive tests? Obviously no proof, though not proof of doping either.

Performance entirely in line with physiological possibilties and of the very best clean athletes, well obiously Skys riders are mediocre riders who have to dope to match other superior talents, and so on.

Proof of doping is possible, proof of non doping impossible. So you can take the dismal view that everyonenis doping and no one can ever proove you wrong. Or you can take the slightly more positive view that as there are no proof of doping, there is a good probability they may be clean.

 

[Benotti69]

Showing that you really havent understood the point. How can you prove that you are clean?

No positive tests? Obviously no proof, though not proof of doping either.

Performance entirely in line with physiological possibilties and of the very best clean athletes, well obiously Skys riders are mediocre riders who have to dope to match other superior talents, and so on.

Proof of doping is possible, proof of non doping impossible. So you can take the dismal view that everyonenis doping and no one can ever proove you wrong. Or you can take the slightly more positive view that as there are no proof of doping, there is a good probability they may be clean.

Well we can all live in lala land or we can realise that this is pro cycling and the people who keep telling us this is clean did nothing when it was dirty so why believe them now?

2 positives in the TdF don't speak of a clean tour.

1 team totally dominating the race from start to finish is not a clean tour.

Cycling rarely offers the dirt for the fans, the dirt gets revealed due to police vigilance or stupidity on the part of pro cycling.

McQuaid called Landis bitter and non credible, but he is part of the reason that riders are taking less PEDS, not McQuaid. I say less not but not none.

So go on living in your positive dreamland where the riders are doing it on bread and water.

 

[pmcg76]

Showing that you really havent understood the point. How can you prove that you are clean?

No positive tests? Obviously no proof, though not proof of doping either.

Performance entirely in line with physiological possibilties and of the very best clean athletes, well obiously Skys riders are mediocre riders who have to dope to match other superior talents, and so on.

Proof of doping is possible, proof of non doping impossible. So you can take the dismal view that everyonenis doping and no one can ever proove you wrong. Or you can take the slightly more positive view that as there are no proof of doping, there is a good probability they may be clean.

This argument falls down on the fact that one of the era's with the least amount of positive tests was probably the 90s pre Festina. What actually happened is what you suggest people do now in regards the subject of doping, do not question and just assume everything is rosy in the garden. Well we seen how that worked out before.

To me, there are too many relatively new fans who didnt have to live through the good old, bad old days of the 90 when everyone was finally jolted awake by the Festina affair.

As for proving you are clean, maybe not hiring dodgy doctors and actually allowing guys like Kimmage to spend time with the team would be a step in the right direction. After all this is what SKY promoted when they first started.

The only other team who actively promote themselves as clean are Garmin and they allowed Kimmage to spend time with them and interview their own dodgy doctor, Lim. They are still plenty of cynics here who give Garmin short shrift so its hardly just SKY.

 

[Ferminal]

Showing that you really havent understood the point. How can you prove that you are clean?

No positive tests? Obviously no proof, though not proof of doping either.

Performance entirely in line with physiological possibilties and of the very best clean athletes, well obiously Skys riders are mediocre riders who have to dope to match other superior talents, and so on.

Proof of doping is possible, proof of non doping impossible. So you can take the dismal view that everyonenis doping and no one can ever proove you wrong. Or you can take the slightly more positive view that as there are no proof of doping, there is a good probability they may be clean.

Not testing positive and being within human limits, whilst not being proof of cleanliness, suggest that it is possible they are. If that were not the case we wouldn't be having these discussions.

The point is that we are free to believe in either outcome, there is little information available which can overturn existing biases on either side.

But somehow it's irrational to believe that a professional athlete may go beyond what is legal in enhancing their performance...

 

[Sigmund]

Well we can all live in lala land or we can realise that this is pro cycling and the people who keep telling us this is clean did nothing when it was dirty so why believe them now?

2 positives in the TdF don't speak of a clean tour.

1 team totally dominating the race from start to finish is not a clean tour.

Cycling rarely offers the dirt for the fans, the dirt gets revealed due to police vigilance or stupidity on the part of pro cycling.

McQuaid called Landis bitter and non credible, but he is part of the reason that riders are taking less PEDS, not McQuaid. I say less not but not none.

So go on living in your positive dreamland where the riders are doing it on bread and water.

See I dont get this! Why the derogatory remarks and accusations of living in lala land? You disagree with me, that is fine. Actually, you dont even know what my opnion is, I havent stated it. I merely pointed out the fact that you cannot prove non doping, and that given that fact, when doping has not been proved there are two possible ways of interpreting that lack of proof.

I have been following the sport for 15 years and have no illusions. I, like everyone else on this forum know pro cyclings history but given the evidence on the table it is entirely possible to reach a different conclusion than you have.

 

[Sigmund]

Not testing positive and being within human limits, whilst not being proof of cleanliness, suggest that it is possible they are. If that were not the case we wouldn't be having these discussions.

The point is that we are free to believe in either outcome, there is little information available which can overturn existing biases on either side.

But somehow it's irrational to believe that a professional athlete may go beyond what is legal in enhancing their performance...

Do not put words in my mouth. You asked for evidence that Sky are clean, I merely pointed out that such evidence is impossible to post, hence a pointless request.

I haven never said it is irrational to believe that a professional athlete may dope, quite obviously it is entirely rational to believe that professional athletes dope (some of them, maybe even many, maybe even an overwhelming majority, but not everyone). I have only said that a hypothetical clean athlete would be unable to prove such cleanliness

 

[Ferminal]

I was not suggesting you did, sorry if you interpreted it that way.

 

[Benotti69]

See I dont get this! Why the derogatory remarks and accusations of living in lala land? You disagree with me, that is fine. Actually, you dont even know what my opnion is, I havent stated it. I merely pointed out the fact that you cannot prove non doping, and that given that fact, when doping has not been proved there are two possible ways of interpreting that lack of proof.

I have been following the sport for 15 years and have no illusions. I, like everyone else on this forum know pro cyclings history but given the evidence on the table it is entirely possible to reach a different conclusion than you have.

Then why try and defend a team that hires a doping doctor, trains in an area known to used by doping teams as great to get advance notice of OOC testing, has a team leader that professes his love (Wiggins word not mine) for Armstrong who has been at the centre of doping allegations since 1999 and calls fans F****** W****** ad C**** when they question him?

We have been here before in the sport, as you would know having followed it for 15 years. I, sadly, am following for 20+ years and they still ruin it for me. Will i give them the benefit of the doubt? Will i F**K!

Too many experienced voices in the clinic know when what they are watching is natural or not. When you have a guy like Kimmage asking for explanations, as in litigious society he cant call it without solid proof and dare he suggest it well Sky will sue him, and all we get in return is silence, well it isn't the repsonse of a clean team in my book.

Prior to Kimmage's article Brailsford's disgusting use of a Sky members death as the reason to hire a doping doctor says lots about what kind of team we are dealing with here. That is worse than anything anyone has posted in the clinic about Sky by a long long way.

 

[Benotti69]

<snip>

I have only said that a hypothetical clean athlete would be unable to prove such cleanliness

Why not if they posted their numbers online? Why not if WADA independent approved officials controlled that the numbers were genuine?

Why are athletes not demanding such a system to prove they are clean?

Why are riders not trying organise such a system?

Because most aren't clean would be my guess.

TeamSky put together a tome to prove why they were going to do it clean and the rules within that tome was going to be the foundation for a transparent team proving athletes competing clean.

There are plenty of people willing to put there numbers online for the public to view.

Why can Sky not follow suit? They said thy were going to be transparent?

I can guess why without seeing the numbers. The same reason we saw Wiggins leading a sprint train the day before the ITT stage on stage 19. His numbers would show he didn't weaken over 3 weeks as would a normal clean athlete.

 

[Sigmund]

Why not if they posted their numbers online? Why not if WADA independent approved officials controlled that the numbers were genuine?

Why are athletes not demanding such a system to prove they are clean?

Why are riders not trying organise such a system?

TeamSky put together a tome to prove why they were going to do it clean and the rules within that tome was going to be the foundation for a transparent team proving athletes competing clean.

There are plenty of people willing to put there numbers online for the public to view.

Why can Sky not follow suit? They said thy were going to be transparent?

I agree with all of these points (edited out the ones where I am more equivocal) except for the first.

Obviously posting the numbers online would not be proof, a strong indication perhaps and maybe enough to persuade some people, but many would merely state that they had found a way of fiddling the number. Or tail end normailities would be construed to be proof of doping. I still think they should publish it but I can understand why a hypothetically clean athelete/team would be reluctant. All it takes is one "expert" with an axe to grind and this hypothetically clean athlete would be hung out to dry in public. Which is why the bloodpassport is a compromise I would imagine.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Why not if they posted their numbers online? Why not if WADA independent approved officials controlled that the numbers were genuine?

Why are athletes not demanding such a system to prove they are clean?

Why are riders not trying organise such a system?

Because most aren't clean would be my guess.

+1

The bio-passport very likely has the data to do this with good precision. Yes, couch surfers like me don't know what we're looking at if the data were published, but there's ample, willing public expertise to translate the results.

The first road block is the UCI and probably the IOC. The second road block is the riders.

I have no doubt there are some clean riders who would have no problem publishing bio-passport data, but they are a very weak minority compared to the UCI and team management. How weak? Until the USADA named and shamed Marti, it was estimated by USADA he was still dealing.

You don't even need to go that far though. How about back-testing samples with penalties issued today? There's 8 years of data at any given time. Go back five years, retest with modern protocols and Pat would be busy hiding AAF's for a year or more.

 

[Sigmund]

Then why try and defend a team that hires a doping doctor, trains in an area known to used by doping teams as great to get advance notice of OOC testing, has a team leader that professes his love (Wiggins word not mine) for Armstrong who has been at the centre of doping allegations since 1999 and calls fans F****** W****** ad C**** when they question him?

We have been here before in the sport, as you would know having followed it for 15 years. I, sadly, am following for 20+ years and they still ruin it for me. Will i give them the benefit of the doubt? Will i F**K!

Too many experienced voices in the clinic know when what they are watching is natural or not. When you have a guy like Kimmage asking for explanations, as in litigious society he cant call it without solid proof and dare he suggest it well Sky will sue him, and all we get in return is silence, well it isn't the repsonse of a clean team in my book.

Prior to Kimmage's article Brailsford's disgusting use of a Sky members death as the reason to hire a doping doctor says lots about what kind of team we are dealing with here. That is worse than anything anyone has posted in the clinic about Sky by a long long way.

All this is fair enough, I can see where you re coming from. But you could have said all this without the derogatory remarks and accusations of living in lala land.

I have been following this forum for two/three years and have found a lot of interesting and usefull facts and opinions. I think the poisonous debating climate is sad as it wil turn many people off from participating and thus we all lose out on usefull and interesting facts.

 

[DirtyWorks]

All it takes is one "expert" with an axe to grind and this hypothetically clean athlete would be hung out to dry in public. Which is why the bloodpassport is a compromise I would imagine.

No. You don't understand the science behind the biopassport. The longitudinal tracking is a powerful tool assuming the rider's data starts out clean. Perfect? No. That's why back-dated testing is so important and not done.

There's enough bad science that has been taken as Gospel at this point anyway. Ed Coyle is perhaps the worst offender in cycling.

 

[gustienordic]

All this is fair enough, I can see where you re coming from. But you could have said all this without the derogatory remarks and accusations of living in lala land.

I have been following this forum for two/three years and have found a lot of interesting and usefull facts and opinions. I think the poisonous debating climate is sad as it wil turn many people off from participating and thus we all lose out on usefull and interesting facts.

That is why I tend to stick to the Road forum... but he does have a good point...