The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
djpbaltimore said:Don't forget about Michelle Smith de Bruin in swimming.
wendybnt said:I often wondered why Kimmage doesn't focus more on his own countryman. The Irish were very early adopters of EPO. Pioneers in fact, when you look at Roche's stellar one-off year of 1987. Bit like Wiggo's 2012
Irish cycling hero Sean Kelly can never really comment on doping because he trails enough dirt behind him to fertilize the Sahara.
Plenty of work for Kimmage in his home country. Maybe he just doesn't like to look.
He rejected the suggestion put to him by Miriam O’Callaghan that Sean Kelly and Stephen Roche may have felt betrayed by his book, saying it was the cancer of doping he was targeting and he had a responsibility as a journalist to write about that.
“I was trying to make the sport purer and better for everybody. And they have a responsibility to address it as well. Whether they like to hear that or not, they have a responsibility to do that.
wendybnt said:I often wondered why Kimmage doesn't focus more on his own countryman. The Irish were very early adopters of EPO. Pioneers in fact, when you look at Roche's stellar one-off year of 1987. Bit like Wiggo's 2012
Irish cycling hero Sean Kelly can never really comment on doping because he trails enough dirt behind him to fertilize the Sahara.
Plenty of work for Kimmage in his home country. Maybe he just doesn't like to look.
Benotti69 said:wendybnt said:I often wondered why Kimmage doesn't focus more on his own countryman. The Irish were very early adopters of EPO. Pioneers in fact, when you look at Roche's stellar one-off year of 1987. Bit like Wiggo's 2012
Irish cycling hero Sean Kelly can never really comment on doping because he trails enough dirt behind him to fertilize the Sahara.
Plenty of work for Kimmage in his home country. Maybe he just doesn't like to look.
These cases are already well documented. Kimmage wrote a piece about Kelly this year. He calls out Roche plenty of times.
Why dont the British 'journalists' look at their own? Kimmage has done and did it well.
But lets all shoot someone who dared to put himself above the parapet and leave the rest of the cowards to bask in the omerta....
del1962 said:Isn't it Roche more than Kelly that doesn't like Kimmage, anyway I think it was Walsh who took the biggest flak about Roche.
wendybnt said:Who knows? Roche used it later with Conconi, but for his 1987 it was probably transfusions. The Tour that year was very long and very hard and very soon after his Giro win.
wendybnt said:Not from what Ive heard about the 80s. Logistical problem with blood storage and transport but doable.
Ask Lance.
So anyway, the Irish have a long history of dirtying cycling. McQuaid, anyone?
pmcg76 said:wendybnt said:Not from what Ive heard about the 80s. Logistical problem with blood storage and transport but doable.
Ask Lance.
So anyway, the Irish have a long history of dirtying cycling. McQuaid, anyone?
Sorry but it was hardly blood bags that made the difference, Roche was 3rd in the Tour in 85, the riders ahead of him were Hinault and LeMond who were not there in 87 so it wasn't exactly a surprise he won the Tour. He was the favourite going into it.
The Giro-Tour was impressive but not as unheard of it as it is now.
The Worlds were a bit of tactical luck. Attacked to take the heat of Kelly, instead of following Roche, the rest watched Kelly until it was too late.
It was an amazing season for Roche but he was a top, top rider before then and as I said Hinault/Lemond, the previous top 2 riders were not there in 87. Why did the blood bags not work between 88-91?
But you correct in that Kimmage has never come out and told how it was with Kelly/Roche.
pmcg76 said:wendybnt said:Not from what Ive heard about the 80s. Logistical problem with blood storage and transport but doable.
Ask Lance.
So anyway, the Irish have a long history of dirtying cycling. McQuaid, anyone?
Sorry but it was hardly blood bags that made the difference, Roche was 3rd in the Tour in 85, the riders ahead of him were Hinault and LeMond who were not there in 87 so it wasn't exactly a surprise he won the Tour. He was the favourite going into it.
The Giro-Tour was impressive but not as unheard of it as it is now.
The Worlds were a bit of tactical luck. Attacked to take the heat of Kelly, instead of following Roche, the rest watched Kelly until it was too late.
It was an amazing season for Roche but he was a top, top rider before then and as I said Hinault/Lemond, the previous top 2 riders were not there in 87. Why did the blood bags not work between 88-91?
But you correct in that Kimmage has never come out and told how it was with Kelly/Roche.
wendybnt said:pmcg76 said:wendybnt said:Not from what Ive heard about the 80s. Logistical problem with blood storage and transport but doable.
Ask Lance.
So anyway, the Irish have a long history of dirtying cycling. McQuaid, anyone?
Sorry but it was hardly blood bags that made the difference, Roche was 3rd in the Tour in 85, the riders ahead of him were Hinault and LeMond who were not there in 87 so it wasn't exactly a surprise he won the Tour. He was the favourite going into it.
The Giro-Tour was impressive but not as unheard of it as it is now.
The Worlds were a bit of tactical luck. Attacked to take the heat of Kelly, instead of following Roche, the rest watched Kelly until it was too late.
It was an amazing season for Roche but he was a top, top rider before then and as I said Hinault/Lemond, the previous top 2 riders were not there in 87. Why did the blood bags not work between 88-91?
But you correct in that Kimmage has never come out and told how it was with Kelly/Roche.
Not having a go, but that sounds a bit like the explanation people give for Wiggo's incredible 2012.....main opposition not there, course suited him etc etc
Why did Wiggo-juice not work for him 2013-15? Etc
wendybnt said:Hmmm.....a 3rd in the TdF being his only standout GT performance prior to his 'amazing' Triple Crown. Bit like Wiggins 3rd in 2009
It is a nice comparison as Wiggins swapped focus not once but twice. No solid focus on road until 2009.
It still remains to be explained how Roche is only one of two cyclists ever to have won the Triple Crown, and he certainly looks like it can only be explained by the word 'luck'.
I stand to be corrected, but I'm not aware of Kimmage ever going on record (and private conversations or unrecorded talks don't count) and giving Roche the scrutiny he deserved. It certainly isn't in Rough Ride, contrary to what CycleChic infers as in the book he hero-worships Roche.
Walsh did try and expose Roche very publically on national Irish tv. A tremendously brave act, I feel. I know Walsh has joined the other side and gone for the easy money, but certainly prior to that he is a shining example of what a journalist with an anti-doping slant should be.
Bernie's eyesore said:The more I think about the way Kimmage attacked the 2007 Argentina rugby side, the more it makes my blood boil. His attack bears an uncanny resemblance to Kittel's outing of Sayar or Cram's comments about Makhloufi. All because they had the temerity to knock out his beloved Ireland. The guy has lost all credibility.
Benotti69 said:wendybnt said:Hmmm.....a 3rd in the TdF being his only standout GT performance prior to his 'amazing' Triple Crown. Bit like Wiggins 3rd in 2009
It is a nice comparison as Wiggins swapped focus not once but twice. No solid focus on road until 2009.
It still remains to be explained how Roche is only one of two cyclists ever to have won the Triple Crown, and he certainly looks like it can only be explained by the word 'luck'.
I stand to be corrected, but I'm not aware of Kimmage ever going on record (and private conversations or unrecorded talks don't count) and giving Roche the scrutiny he deserved. It certainly isn't in Rough Ride, contrary to what CycleChic infers as in the book he hero-worships Roche.
Walsh did try and expose Roche very publically on national Irish tv. A tremendously brave act, I feel. I know Walsh has joined the other side and gone for the easy money, but certainly prior to that he is a shining example of what a journalist with an anti-doping slant should be.
Considering Roche made a public apology to Paul Kimmage on Irish radio, exonerates Kimmage. That there was a court case in which Roche was named as a doper as well means it is on public record. That Kimmage does not control the media is not a valid excuse to take pot shots at him.
As for a public performance in a theatre, recorded by a production company, that is going on public record. That he did it more than once on the 'whistleblowers' tour again to what were cycling fans is a big audience who got the message that Roche and Kelly doped.
I repeat, taking pot shots at Kimmage, who never claimed to be perfect it really low considering the Fortheringhams, Walsh(with Sky), Moore, et al the other sniffling @r€e lickers in sporting journalism
Kimmage, as far as i know has never held himself up to be the anti doping hero is shining armour. That as everyone knows is David Millar.
Benotti69 said:Bernie's eyesore said:The more I think about the way Kimmage attacked the 2007 Argentina rugby side, the more it makes my blood boil. His attack bears an uncanny resemblance to Kittel's outing of Sayar or Cram's comments about Makhloufi. All because they had the temerity to knock out his beloved Ireland. The guy has lost all credibility.
No he hasn't. He aint perfect. Walsh is the example of someone losing all credibilty. Plenty never had any cred.
Bernie's eyesore said:Benotti69 said:Bernie's eyesore said:The more I think about the way Kimmage attacked the 2007 Argentina rugby side, the more it makes my blood boil. His attack bears an uncanny resemblance to Kittel's outing of Sayar or Cram's comments about Makhloufi. All because they had the temerity to knock out his beloved Ireland. The guy has lost all credibility.
No he hasn't. He aint perfect. Walsh is the example of someone losing all credibilty. Plenty never had any cred.
I don't understand the relevance of your post, we're not discussing Walsh here and nobody is defending him.