Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[stutue]

That's BS. Kimmage is impervious to charm. He's also spent the last couple of years openly badmouthing Sky.

No. The only plausible explantation for Kimmage not exposing Sky's blatant in-your-face doping is that they have paid him off. After all, he is short of money.

They got to Walsh. Now they've got to Kimmage.

These are dark days my friends.

 

[pancakes]

What a surprise. A catch-all get out from Benny.



Won many Tours recently? Or couldn't you find the time to do it in between posting on here?

Do you think that Froome spends his life on the internet? The guy is a pro athlete. He won't be interested in the slightest in Sky PR beyond finding it a PITA to have to turn up to corporate events.

Stu, it may not be about how busy Froome was being a pro athlete but more a contractual obligation.
IF it was Sky Pro Cycling Team policy that no rider may race with a TUE then it should have been on his contract in the anti doping/medical section where the athlete agrees to be aware of and to follow the "anti doping rules" of all the various governing bodies he is likely to come into contact with globally, nationally and per event.

In addition to the standard UCI/WADA/IOC/NADOs rules many teams add their own extra rules and regs to cover themselves for events exactly like this case where the athlete claims "I didn't know........"
There can/should also be a clause whereby the athlete must consult with team management and medical staff prior to taking ANY medicine banned or not.

If this TUE free racing really is Sky policy then Froome maybe in breach of contract (if as posted here he is claiming he didn't know.....)

Maybe JV could let us know more about his team's contract with regard to TUEs and antidoping/medical and what sanctions he would impose for a rider and/or doctor that broke his team's policy?

 

[the sceptic]

That's BS. Kimmage is impervious to charm. He's also spent the last couple of years openly badmouthing Sky.

No. The only plausible explantation for Kimmage not exposing Sky's blatant in-your-face doping is that they have paid him off. After all, he is short of money.

They got to Walsh. Now they've got to Kimmage.

These are dark days my friends.

 

[hrotha]

It's an interview, ffs. Only thing Kimmage can do is catch Froome in inconsistencies and contradictions - and, from what I've read, it would seem PK didn't do too badly in that regard.

 

[stutue]

I guess I could answer that by asking 'Is that the best you can do?'

But I think I already know the answer to that.

 

[thehog]

Not even close, looks like Kimmage was the victim of a charm offensive... Tame stuff.

I think more to the point is that Kimmage has yet to provide his verdict from the interview.

What we've seen is Q & A rather than an article with his summary and thoughts. There I believe he'll be able to cross referee the obvious BS with the responses provided.

Reading what I have it appeared a lot better prepared than Walsh and asked the right questions. He never was going to get a doping confession but he certainly got an evasive responses with Froome pretending not to know the aspects of TUEs etc.

I'll happily wait for PK to provide more detail and a summary to what he witnessed in the coming days.

Paul is no mug.

 

[Afrank]

Remember to keep discussion on topic, respond to the post, not the poster, and leave personal comments about other posters out.

 

[thehog]

It's an interview, ffs. Only thing Kimmage can do is catch Froome in inconsistencies and contradictions - and, from what I've read, it would seem PK didn't do too badly in that regard.

Agreed. There's a lot of juicy material and contradictions in there.

Also it sounds to me he Froome's are fighting with Walsh and no longer in love? Why else choose to speak with Kimmage?

 

[mikeoneill]

brailsford should just give froome a lie detector test and assuage the doubters

why doesn't someone ask him?

 

[Benotti69]

Agreed. There's a lot of juicy material and contradictions in there.

Also it sounds to me he Froome's are fighting with Walsh and no longer in love? Why else choose to speak with Kimmage?

I did wonder why not Walsh......

 

[the sceptic]

Agreed. There's a lot of juicy material and contradictions in there.

Also it sounds to me he Froome's are fighting with Walsh and no longer in love? Why else choose to speak with Kimmage?

I would guess that Walsh had no idea about the asthma and the horse steroids.

Maybe some doubts are starting to creep in?

 

[Benotti69]

I would guess that Walsh had no idea about the asthma and the horse steroids.

Maybe some doubts are starting to creep in?

Harder to lie to someone again when you been caught lying.

 

[thehog]

I would guess that Walsh had no idea about the asthma and the horse steroids.

Maybe some doubts are starting to creep in?

Yes it is obvious Walsh was unaware of the asthma and the TUEs. He is now caught between a rock and a hard place because he looks utterly stupid and has been played.

Walsh also must be seething that Cound is crying and the Froome's are now trying to seduce PK!

This is going to end up a bizarre love triangle!

 

[del1962]

Or perhaps Walsh set up the interview for Kimmage, who knows?

 

[Benotti69]

Or perhaps Walsh set up the interview for Kimmage, who knows?

Nope, Walsh and Kimmage not talking.

 

[gooner]

Yes it is obvious Walsh was unaware of the asthma and the TUEs. He is now caught between a rock and a hard place because he looks utterly stupid and has been played.

Walsh also must be seething that Cound is crying and the Froome's are now trying to seduce PK!

This is going to end up a bizarre love triangle!

Walsh interviewed Froome today for The Sunday Times. Haven't read it btw.

PK asked Froome with regards to Walsh's piece saying Sky weren't the most ethical team. Froome said he didn't read it but he spoke to Walsh about it, didn't go into detail in what they said.

 

[Jack (6 ch)]

Walsh interviewed Froome today for The Sunday Times. Haven't read it btw.

said.

First half is looking ahead to TdF, tactics, etc.

To paraphrase: Inhaler, why the big deal, had asthma since I was 12. Six Sky riders use inhalers. No permission is needed.

TUE is the last part of the article. 'It's disappointing that private medical info has to be given out'. Picked up chest infection that aggravated asthma during Tenerife trip. Tried to go into Romandie carrying the infection, realised after day 1 his cough/chest got worse, team's staff decided he needed the meds. Thrust of the article seems to be that it was a team decision.

'Prednisone is not a PED'. (Quote directly attributed to CF).

Interview was carried out on 12 June, pre his crash in the Dauphine, post inhaler hiatus. The TUE story broke later, so DW must have had to have a subsequent contact with CF to address that issue.

Sky media tactic seems to be to put CF out there and address the issue full on. CF tactic is to say it was a team decision, not mine!

 

[elduggo]

Or perhaps Walsh set up the interview for Kimmage, who knows?

no. Kimmage said he was offered an interview last year but at a time where there was no real appetite for the interview (from the indo). Said he e-mailed Cound looking for this interview. Froome called him back asking him what he had in mind, and Kimmage flew out to Monaco during the week.

At the end of the piece he said he was only 1 hour 20 into their interview and he only feels like they're getting started.

The full piece (including, I presume, the other 1 hour 40 mins) will be on the indo website from lunchtime tomorrow.

 

[elduggo]

don't know if a link was posted yet or not. In case it hasn't been;

http://www.independent.ie/sport/oth...s-right-in-the-eye-of-the-storm-30391816.html


seems theres more to come tomorrow

 

[Eriana]

Agreed. There's a lot of juicy material and contradictions in there.

Also it sounds to me he Froome's are fighting with Walsh and no longer in love? Why else choose to speak with Kimmage?

Easy answer: the best PR move when you are in the middle of a scandal is to have the person who most wants to see you suffer do the interview...and, apart from some some people on this forum, I cannot think of anybody who wants Froome and Sky to suffer more than Kimmage.

That being said, I haven't seen too much skill in the PR damage control moves in the past from Sky. They seem to have 2 modes on: "deny, deny, deny" & "ignore, ignore, ignore".
Put together with Michelle inactivating her Twitter (which happened in the past 2 weeks) kind of spells out that Froome retained the services of a reputation / damage control specialized PR company (think Scandal, yes, those really exist). I wonder who they are.

Now, can somebody pleeaaaase take a picture of the article (or 2) and post them here for those of us who don't have access to the printed version. Thanks!

 

[elduggo]

Now, can somebody pleeaaaase take a picture of the article (or 2) and post them here for those of us who don't have access to the printed version. Thanks!

jeeeeeeesus

 

[Fzotrlool]

MC: We have had zero communication from the UCI or Wada or anything on this. I sent an email to Brian Cookson (the president of the UCI) - because he went and tweeted a whole load of fluff again yesterday - and I said to him: 'Don't you think you owe Chris an apology here?' Because Chris' reputation has been ruined here.

CF: Damaged, not ruined.

Kicking Kreuziger out?

 

[Benotti69]

PK: But I thought you only had to apply for the TUE when you were in competition?

CF: No, I think you have to apply for them out of competition too because it's a banned substance. I think 'in' or 'out' you have to apply and that was the case last year . . . But getting back to your original question: I think people trying to judge Team Sky's ethical standards because of this one case is a bit far to go.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/oth...-the-storm-30391816.html#sthash.dcocSvsT.dpuf

So Froome is not sure of what he is allowed to do as an athlete! How old is this guy and how long has he been a pro and he 'thinks' you have to apply for a TUE OOC....

 

[Benotti69]

this is interesting because how far can you take this thinking

PK: The thing is this, Chris: I want you to set the standard for behaviour.

CF: But at what cost?

PK: At what cost?

CF: Do we sacrifice winning a race like the Tour de France, even when we are following the rules? Or do we go further than following the rules and pull out of the race?

Did Froome say to himself when Sky were going to ditch him, "sacrifice, i trained and raced all these years at what cost? '**** the sacrifice', i going to dope......"

Seems to be a guy who is prepared to do what it takes.....

 

[Eriana]

jeeeeeeesus

Thanks, I was writing the post and didn't see your comment until after I published mine.