Wiggins/Froome Asthma

Kieran81

MPFGLB wrote: »

Kimmage is just as much a part of the problem

For cycling is full of clean riders, team and success.

he isn't and it isn't

cjonesy1

MPFGLB wrote: »

I watched Cold Feet on Monday and in a family drama alluded to the Tour de France when the main characters were out for a bike ride...The comments were as to how the Tour i full of blood doping and EPO
This is the main stram view of professional cycling

From 1991 until the last few years, you'd struggle to find a clean rider who won the TDF. I'd say the mainstream view is just reflecting this. Cycling is getting its act together, but it will take time for people to have faith in it.

TheBlaaMan

@MPFGLB

I think you are failing to see the problem that most people have with this scenario, and it is the absolute hypocrisy of Team Sky in how they have behaved over the past few years. Far from being the white knights riding in to save cycling, it is now seen that they are the same as everyone else - in your own words "they have not done anything that is not happening I would venture in other teams" .............when they held themselves up to lofty ideals way above that standard. There are entire tracts of this story that dont add up, and seeing Wiggins as the problem - rather than his (ex)team is - facile and simply not credible. Suggesting that the obtaining of TUEs on those dates was 'necessary' just doesn't wash and the team was deeply involved in doing so. Sure, the TUE process itself is the primary problem, but they are hiding behind a smokescreen of quasi-appropriateness that is paper-thin and causing further damage to the sport.

Walshs role in the cheer-leading has been nauseating, and his article today tries to place clear water between the rider and the team. Walsh is answering to his pay-master, just as Matthew Syed was a few weeks back with the piece of fluff journalism on T/S that he published - in the same paper of course. Its not difficult to see why Walsh does this - discussing the asking of 'awkward questions of Sky by a Sunday Times journalist, Kimmage says in his Independent article today that there was "no appetite for those questions at the paper any more and he (Walsh) didn't want to join me" in the ranks of the recently fired. That's fine - self-preservation is a great skill, but please, back away from the topic altogether and dont write such gushing sh1te as Walsh has done in recent years. Dont take the readers for idiots. Has he no shame?

As an aside, if this TUE thing isn't "sorted" it surely gives rise to the risk that a pre-disposition or diagnosis of a "condition" will become a positive selection criteria for sports people in years to come? Where strong PEDs are available to an athlete because they have an underlying ailment it definitely gives them a performance advantage. US gymnast Simone Biles was 'exposed' by the Fancy Bears crew for use of Ritalin - that is a known performance enhancer (primarily cognitive) - for a longstanding ADHD condition. Can we expect less than scrupulous coaches to seek out talented youngsters with known underlying conditions and hence use the TUE process to elevate them from 'also-rans' to superstars? A horrifying thought, but it doesnt seem that far-fetched..

Rambling Man

I also think Kimmage took a skewed, personal shot at Walsh rather than writing directly about the veracity of Wiggins' claims. But then again for Kimmage there are no revelations - he never believed Sky in the first place

MPFGLB

terrydel wrote: »

I think thats being extremely kind.
To claim Kimmage is toxic for the sport or as much a part of the problem as Sky (which he did say in that rambling post) is some of the most laughable bollox I've ever seen posted on the internet, which is really saying something.

Because I din't say that ...I never compared Kimmage to SKY ...you did !!!

Maybe if you could read what was written we might be getting somwhere

Idolising Kimmage as aman of cycling is the bollix What has Kimmage uncovered exactly and what soluton has he prioferred
Kimmage has turned up nothing ...he has gotten peoples backs up ....

And alternative view on Kimmage and you call it bollix .....open much to an alternative view and debate is utter bollix imo

Macy0161

ednwireland wrote:

Just read washes Sunday times piece and it's definitely saying (in my opinion ) that wiggins did this all on his own and team sky didn't know. Now why does just raise more questions in my head than it answers.

A rogue Team Sky doctor seems to be Walsh's latest apology for Team Sky based on the extracts I've read. Sky are fecked on this one as the rumour mill was saying Wiggins had gone to a doctor outside of the team earlier in the week, but solo run by 1 team doctor seems to be the weekend spin...

MPFGLB

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

@MPFGLB

I think you are failing to see the problem that most people have with this scenario, and it is the absolute hypocrisy of Team Sky in how they have behaved over the past few years. Far from being the white knights riding in to save cycling, it is now seen that they are the same as everyone else - in your own words "they have not done anything that is not happening I would venture in other teams" .............when they held themselves up to lofty ideals way above that standard. There are entire tracts of this story that dont add up, and seeing Wiggins as the problem - rather than his (ex)team is - facile and simply not credible. Suggesting that the obtaining of TUEs on those dates was 'necessary' just doesn't wash and the team was deeply involved in doing so. Sure, the TUE process itself is the primary problem, but they are hiding behind a smokescreen of quasi-appropriateness that is paper-thin and causing further damage to the sport.

Walshs role in the cheer-leading has been nauseating, and his article today tries to place clear water between the rider and the team. Walsh is answering to his pay-master, just as Matthew Syed was a few weeks back with the piece of fluff journalism on T/S that he published - in the same paper of course. Its not difficult to see why Walsh does this - discussing the asking of 'awkward questions of Sky by a Sunday Times journalist, Kimmage says in his Independent article today that there was "no appetite for those questions at the paper any more and he (Walsh) didn't want to join me" in the ranks of the recently fired. That's fine - self-preservation is a great skill, but please, back away from the topic altogether and dont write such gushing sh1te as Walsh has done in recent years. Dont take the readers for idiots. Has he no shame?

As an aside, if this TUE thing isn't "sorted" it surely gives rise to the risk that a pre-disposition or diagnosis of a "condition" will become a positive selection criteria for sports people in years to come? Where strong PEDs are available to an athlete because they have an underlying ailment it definitely gives them a performance advantage. US gymnast Simone Biles was 'exposed' by the Fancy Bears crew for use of Ritalin - that is a known performance enhancer (primarily cognitive) - for a longstanding ADHD condition. Can we expect less than scrupulous coaches to seek out talented youngsters with known underlying conditions and hence use the TUE process to elevate them from 'also-rans' to superstars? A horrifying thought, but it doesnt seem that far-fetched..

Not sure why this is directed at me ?

I condemed SKYs stance and actions but my post was about Kimmage

I am not sure why you are saying I fail to see SKYs hypocracy ?? My post wasn't about this ...It was about Kimmage not being part of the solution which is a competley differnt point

I can agree with all you said (which I do) ...but that doesn't mean I hold Kimmage up as a hero for the sport or think he has been part of the solution
??

MPFGLB

Kieran81 wrote: »

he isn't and it isn't

Of course there are clean riders in cycling ....but not in Kimmages world

And hence he for all his aggressuve bull is part of the problem....

There is no reasoned approach only full on all out attack ...and to what solution

If you think that the sport is fully corrupt then you might as well give it up

SKY and Wiggins may be hypocrits but I beleive there are lots of good and I believe clean riders even at SKY ....but this is not on message for Kimmage

The one dimentional lack of subtly is a major problem for the sport

And this has nothing to do with excusing SKY anything

harringtonp

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

@MPFGLB

Walshs role in the cheer-leading has been nauseating, and his article today tries to place clear water between the rider and the team.
..
..
the ranks of the recently fired. That's fine - self-preservation is a great skill, but please, back away from the topic altogether and dont write such gushing sh1te as Walsh has done in recent years. Dont take the readers for idiots. Has he no shame?

Afraid that wasn't my take on the article. Walshes delivery is soft (or subtle) and he puts his articles together with good background and intelligence (polar opposite of Kimmage)

He mentioned individuals in Sky who he felt would have had no knowledge of and be abhorred by the TUES. And why shouldn't this be the case for these individuals, they are just ordinary employess after all and presumably some bought into the Sky hype just as many others did. It doesn't take a genius to work out that by not adding Brailsford to this list, he clearly feels Brailsford was heavily involved. And why should be have to state this, its quite clear delivered in this way.

There's lots of thrash in the Sunday Times but his articles (over a range of sports) are always well researched, well thought out and delivered in a gentlemanly but effective fashion. I always read his stuff and will take his style of writing any day over the likes of Kimmage and Dunphy.

harringtonp

Here is another way of putting it:

My 4 year only sees bad guys and good guys: Venom is bad, green hulk is good, red hulk bad, optimum prime good etc..

In school many of my school mates would point out this bol.x or that cu.t in the street just because he said boo to them once or made a bad joke or something else. Once they made there mind up that was it, the cu.t was a cu.t for the rest of his life.

Thankfully from uni onwards more and more people in my sphere had balanced and reasoned views.

Walsh comes from this last camp, Kimmage the first two.

RobFowl

I like Walshs writing most of the time but skip his stuff on cycling now, Kimmage i know and like but he is a self confessed contrary bollix

I read all his stuff bar bogball (just not a fan though i appreciate the skill etc).

Here I know Walsh is wrong and Kimmage right (nothing ever 100% of course, but in the main).

Sky may not be doing anything different than most teams but they are doing things Garmin and MPCC teams are not so are not near the forefront of clear sport as they profess to be.

Wiggins is not at fault here, he was treated by a team doc who applied to the UCI on his behalf (docs apply not athletes). By the very nature of TUEs every one who went into an antidoping test with BW knew about them from Jun 2011 onwards. A team manager or doc goes in to a test with every rider and has the licences and TUEs in their possession.

Wiggins was perhaps chancing his arm but was doing it with the full backing of his team...

Anyways ****e films to watch on TV and cramps in hands to rub out after writing, cooking and cross today (not all at same time).

Nite nite all

morana

he wrote this


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2177405/Bradley-Wiggins-battle-cyclings-drug-demons--Paul-Kimmage.html

Eamonnator

morana wrote: »

he wrote this


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-2177405/Bradley-Wiggins-battle-cyclings-drug-demons--Paul-Kimmage.html

Thanks for the reminder.
E.

CramCycle

I find it funny that people look at Kimmage as being vindictive and angry, when in fact, looking at Walsh and his reports on Armstrong, I would almost say that Lances comments, on certain issues, made him solely this in regards Armstrong. He has never, to me, shown as much perseverance, against any other athlete. He was after him as a journalist before that but once it became personal, he was only slight less vindictive than i think I would have been. Walsh now, is like the majority of well known (not all) sports journalists. He is more of a fan than a journalist and his columns should be treated as gossip/commentary, rather than journalism.

Kimmage on the other hand is bitter with himself, which makes him a good reporter. I have seen the TV spots of him cycling around the place, meeting other cyclists. He loves the sport but he wishes he didn't. I don't blame him. Far worse than his dislike of his love for the sport is that the sport went after him (well high ups in the world or organised cycling).

He is a cantekorous ass, but christ, I wish more journalists hated the areas they reported on as much.

highbury1913

Rambling Man wrote: »

I also think Kimmage took a skewed, personal shot at Walsh rather than writing directly about the veracity of Wiggins' claims. But then again for Kimmage there are no revelations - he never believed Sky in the first place

I agree.

They have been friends for over 30 years and there are plenty of reasons why I would end a friendship of that length and this isn't it. He may disagree with Walsh all he wants, he's entitled to do so, but this should be seen as a simple sporting disagreement. This is Kimmage ludicrously taking Walsh's belief in Sky as a personal dig at him and that's him trying to make the story about himself when it's not. That's a sideshow in getting to the truth on doping in the sport. It's irrelevant.

It's right there in SDS, when Walsh wrote about Kimmage telling him to back off reporting on Lance. He felt it was affecting Walsh's family and that it wasn't worth pursuing anymore. This was also mentioned on that iTalksport show some years ago on Setanta when Kimmage and Walsh were both on. Yet Kimmage has said in the past, he is prepared to strain family relationships and friendships when reporting on doping himself.

He could have directed all this criticism at Sky and Wiggins without personalising it with Walsh as he did on the radio and the Irish Indo.

highbury1913

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

@MPFGLB

I think you are failing to see the problem that most people have with this scenario, and it is the absolute hypocrisy of Team Sky in how they have behaved over the past few years. Far from being the white knights riding in to save cycling, it is now seen that they are the same as everyone else - in your own words "they have not done anything that is not happening I would venture in other teams" .............when they held themselves up to lofty ideals way above that standard. There are entire tracts of this story that dont add up, and seeing Wiggins as the problem - rather than his (ex)team is - facile and simply not credible. Suggesting that the obtaining of TUEs on those dates was 'necessary' just doesn't wash and the team was deeply involved in doing so. Sure, the TUE process itself is the primary problem, but they are hiding behind a smokescreen of quasi-appropriateness that is paper-thin and causing further damage to the sport.

Walshs role in the cheer-leading has been nauseating, and his article today tries to place clear water between the rider and the team. Walsh is answering to his pay-master, just as Matthew Syed was a few weeks back with the piece of fluff journalism on T/S that he published - in the same paper of course. Its not difficult to see why Walsh does this - discussing the asking of 'awkward questions of Sky by a Sunday Times journalist, Kimmage says in his Independent article today that there was "no appetite for those questions at the paper any more and he (Walsh) didn't want to join me" in the ranks of the recently fired. That's fine - self-preservation is a great skill, but please, back away from the topic altogether and dont write such gushing sh1te as Walsh has done in recent years. Dont take the readers for idiots. Has he no shame?

As an aside, if this TUE thing isn't "sorted" it surely gives rise to the risk that a pre-disposition or diagnosis of a "condition" will become a positive selection criteria for sports people in years to come? Where strong PEDs are available to an athlete because they have an underlying ailment it definitely gives them a performance advantage. US gymnast Simone Biles was 'exposed' by the Fancy Bears crew for use of Ritalin - that is a known performance enhancer (primarily cognitive) - for a longstanding ADHD condition. Can we expect less than scrupulous coaches to seek out talented youngsters with known underlying conditions and hence use the TUE process to elevate them from 'also-rans' to superstars? A horrifying thought, but it doesnt seem that far-fetched..

I don't agree with Walsh on everything with Sky but I keep hearing this. Why is it between The Times and Sunday Times, they broke the JTL story, had a headline on the backpage about Michael Barry/Sky/Tramadol, criticised the hiring of Rogers with his links to Ferrari/Freiburg, Froome and Porte visiting motoman's shop, Froome's TUE, Matt Dickinson was in Brailsford's bad books over questioning about the former USPS soigneur at Sky, etc.

The ST have gone after bigger stories than anything we have seen with Sky as was seen with the Bonar story, Russian doping, and the FIFA Files report and I don't see any of those Sunday Times insight reporters losing their jobs.

terrydel

MPFGLB wrote: »

Because I din't say that ...I never compared Kimmage to SKY ...you did !!!

Maybe if you could read what was written we might be getting somwhere

Idolising Kimmage as aman of cycling is the bollix What has Kimmage uncovered exactly and what soluton has he prioferred
Kimmage has turned up nothing ...he has gotten peoples backs up ....

And alternative view on Kimmage and you call it bollix .....open much to an alternative view and debate is utter bollix imo

Can you type that again in English please?

I would not be commenting on my ability to read if I were you, given the incomprehensible drivel you've just typed here.

Here is your quote, lifted directly from your initial post -

'It is possible to have doubst about SKY , to question SKY , to want to see them brought to book and still think Kimmage is just as much a part of the problem'

I think it is reasonable to assume from this quote that you meant Kimmage was as much a part of cycling's drug problem, and I'd wager many others would read into it the same. Given the topic being discussed, what other problem are you referring to?

terrydel

MPFGLB wrote: »

Of course there are clean riders in cycling ....but not in Kimmages world

And hence he for all his aggressuve bull is part of the problem....

There is no reasoned approach only full on all out attack ...and to what solution

If you think that the sport is fully corrupt then you might as well give it up

SKY and Wiggins may be hypocrits but I beleive there are lots of good and I believe clean riders even at SKY ....but this is not on message for Kimmage

The one dimentional lack of subtly is a major problem for the sport

And this has nothing to do with excusing SKY anything

But he's been right basically 100% of the time, so that would seem to justify his approach.

Macy0161

highbury1913 wrote: »

I agree.

They have been friends for over 30 years and there are plenty of reasons why I would end a friendship of that length and this isn't it. He may disagree with Walsh all he wants, he's entitled to do so, but this should be seen as a simple sporting disagreement. This is Kimmage ludicrously taking Walsh's belief in Sky as a personal dig at him and that's him trying to make the story about himself when it's not. That's a sideshow in getting to the truth on doping in the sport. It's irrelevant.

It's right there in SDS, when Walsh wrote about Kimmage telling him to back off reporting on Lance. He felt it was affecting Walsh's family and that it wasn't worth pursuing anymore. This was also mentioned on that iTalksport show some years ago on Setanta when Kimmage and Walsh were both on. Yet Kimmage has said in the past, he is prepared to strain family relationships and friendships when reporting on doping himself.

He could have directed all this criticism at Sky and Wiggins without personalising it with Walsh as he did on the radio and the Irish Indo.

Rightly or wrongly, I think Kimmage feels he was sold out by Walsh. Given what Kimmage has lost, and gone through, probably fair enough I think too. There is logic to Kimmage taking apart Walsh's position as well, it isn't just a bitter rant. Walsh has lost all objectivity when it comes to Sky.

I'm not always the biggest fan of Kimmage - he can be too negative for me, and too down on cycling when some other sports are a complete joke shop (if cycling has got to the stage that TUE's are the problem, that is actually massive progress!) - but I think he is right on Walsh and Sky.

Leroy42

If the world had more journalists like Kimmage (and Walsh in relation to LA) then the people at the top wouldn't be getting away with the sh1t they do for years.

You think Kimmage is a narky, self-serving crank, well guess what? They made him be like that. He tried to work with them, to get the truth out and was blocked, even pursued, at every turn. No wonder he feels the lot of them are against him. Because in the main they are. They want him gone. Life would be so much easier for teams like Sky without Kimmage constantly questioning them. We should all just get on with applauding them and getting a subscription.

He wanted to get access to Team Sky and they wouldn't allow it. Why? "Sure, he'll paint us in a bad light". If you're doing nothing wrong then whats the problem? Surely to get an endorsement from Kimmage is the ultimate positive. People like Kimmage have principles and are prepared to pay the price for those principles.

You think he cares if you like him? His principle is a clean sport and if that means dirtying every piece of linen on the line then so be it and we (or at least future fans) will owe people like him a debt of gratitude.

It the people who just want to carry on and paint those asking the questions as bad for the sport (or anything) that are the real problem. How can Kimmage possibly be part of the problem? He isn't running it. He isn't coaching, or financing or PR for the sport. If he had no truth in what he says then he would quickly be sent away as a crank. And even though he comes close to that each time it turns out that there is always a grain of truth in his suspicions.

ThisRegard

Macy0161 wrote: »

he can be too negative for me, and too down on cycling when some other sports are a complete joke shop

He's as equally critical about other sports when required and often discusses or writes about them, but cycling is his sport.

Andy Magic

highbury1913 wrote: »

Froome and Porte visiting motoman's shop,

Any links for this?

1bryan

highbury1913 wrote: »

I agree.

They have been friends for over 30 years and there are plenty of reasons why I would end a friendship of that length and this isn't it. He may disagree with Walsh all he wants, he's entitled to do so, but this should be seen as a simple sporting disagreement. This is Kimmage ludicrously taking Walsh's belief in Sky as a personal dig at him and that's him trying to make the story about himself when it's not. That's a sideshow in getting to the truth on doping in the sport. It's irrelevant.

wow, thats quite the statement. So you're happy to insert yourself into a friendship between these two, the dynamics of which you know nothing about, other than what is made public, and you feel like you have some kind of right to judge Kimmage for his part in ending the friendship?

wow. just, wow.

josip

cjonesy1 wrote: »

From 1991 until the last few years, you'd struggle to find a clean rider who won the TDF. I'd say the mainstream view is just reflecting this. Cycling is getting its act together, but it will take time for people to have faith in it.

Which of the pre 1991 TDF winners do you think were clean?

Cycling has always had a problem with cheating and doping.

Other sports may have too, but the length of races coupled with little ability to monitor all of a race in the early 20th century, meant that riders could get lifts, get help repairing their bicycles, have competitors attacked.
This cheating was partly/mainly as a result of teams being manufacturer owned and they had huge financial incentives to win at all costs.

That win at all costs mentality and the endurance required to win the races naturally also lent itself to using performance enhancing drugs.

Doping wasn't regulated/criminalised until the 1960s. Before then riders took nitroglycerine, strychnine, cocaine, ether, amphetamines.

I would say that cycling post 1991 has less drugs than pre 1991, but it's far from clean.

paddy no 11

To say kimmage done nothing is nonsense, his sheer guts in standing up to armstrong was extraordinary when you consider the financial clout, influence and willingness to pursue people thru the courts that armstrong had. Taking on a sociopath with unlimited finances with nothing on your side but the truth is truly courageous - nothing else.

Peist2007

Kimmage is the one getting criticism in here?

:pac:

cjt156

Peist2007 wrote: »

Kimmage is the one getting criticism in here?

:pac:

From some. Can't get enough of that delicious Kool-Aid, apparently...

groovyg

I wonder what did Wiggins do that Sky have thrown him under the bus? Froome has a TUE and he is not getting as much bad press.

Lumen

groovyg wrote: »

I wonder what did Wiggins do that Sky have thrown him under the bus? Froome has a TUE and he is not getting as much bad press.

Retire?

PeadarCo

groovyg wrote:

I wonder what did Wiggins do that Sky have thrown him under the bus? Froome has a TUE and he is not getting as much bad press.

Froome was honest. He'd previously admitted everything. Wiggins flat out lied about injections. There was no new news about Froome. He also refused a TUE in last year's Tour when he was sick. Probably due to the stink he knew it could cause if it ever became public.

Its been said by a number of commentators but all TUE should be public. Rider's would be far less likely to avail of them unless absolutely necessary you'd imagine.