Kimmage, anyone?

FransJacques

Kimmage's first arguement is crap: if you don't do well at the tour, suffer like hell and rail on about dopers you're automatically clean and a good guy in Kimmage's books. If you start to ride well and, Allah forbid, befriend Lance, you're not a crusader any more.

His second point should be a 5 second interview question. Trouble is, he totally drew it out and milked it to make it look like a huge dark cloud. But the question deserves an answer.

whyamihere

FransJacques wrote:

His second point should be a 5 second interview question. Trouble is, he totally drew it out and milked it to make it look like a huge dark cloud. But the question deserves an answer.

It was.

Jez mon

esspeebee wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

Kimmage is only asking for what Sky promised: transparency and answers. He is not accusing anyone at Sky, just stating how things look. All sky have to do is clarify things.

He's demanding answers that have already been provided, which is usually the mark of someone who's just desperate for a story. Sky have already clarified why they changed that particular policy, of not hiring doctors that had worked in cycling before. It turns out that looking after athletes performing at the limit of their endurance for three weeks at a time in extreme heat is quite a specialised field, and it helps to have someone with actual experience of doing that.

And yet IIRC they didn't see fit to take Leinders to the tour...

I think Kimmage sometimes confuses asking difficult/probing questions with just being a d!ck sometimes. But equally, I think Sky didn't do themselves any favours with their anti-doping policy.

dougzz

iainf72 wrote:

via @raceradio
Problem w/ Leinders is he left Rabo in anger because he disagreed with new, clean, direction. Doesn't sound like a guy who embraces change

But how do we know this is true, RR is Lance fixated.

TheYorkshireMan

esspeebee wrote:

It turns out that looking after athletes performing at the limit of their endurance for three weeks at a time in extreme heat is quite a specialised field, and it helps to have someone with actual experience of doing that.

So, why did they not have Leinders on the Tour with them?

Despite Sky supposedly being clean they are still putting out some impressive power figures, with Wiggins saying they were putting out 450 watts whilst riding at 'tempo' on the climbs. Not only is he doing this in the middle of the hardest stage race there is, it is more than Chris Boardman managed to put out during his hour record!

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8503300

I also see that the average speed for this year's race was a shade under 40 Km hour, faster than Evans managed last year, Contador managed in 2007 and 2010, Armstrong managed in 2002 and 2002, Riis managed in 1996, faster than all of Indurain's wins and so on. OK, so the course affects the average speed, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that, overall, the race has slowed down significantly.

Makes you wonder why anyone used to bother with all that Epo and blood-doping malarky!

stagehopper

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

I also see that the average speed for this year's race was a shade under 40 Km hour, faster than Evans managed last year, Contador managed in 2007 and 2010, Armstrong managed in 2002 and 2002, Riis managed in 1996, faster than all of Indurain's wins and so on. OK, so the course affects the average speed, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that, overall, the race has slowed down significantly.

Makes you wonder why everyone used to bother with all that Epo and blood-doping malarky!

Saw the average speeds earlier:

2012 39.83 - Wiggins - everyone claims to be a very easy parcours
2011 39.79 - Evans - said to have been a hard parcours
2010 39.59 Schleck
2009 40.32 Contador
2008 40.49 Sastre
2007 39.23 Contador
2006 40.78 Pereiro
2005 41.65 Armstrong
2004 40.55 Armstrong
2003 40.94 Armstrong
2002 39.92 Armstrong
2001 40.07 Armstrong
2000 39.57 Armstrong
1999 40.28 Armstrong
1998 39.98 Pantani

times in bold faster than this year.

RichN95.

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

esspeebee wrote:

It turns out that looking after athletes performing at the limit of their endurance for three weeks at a time in extreme heat is quite a specialised field, and it helps to have someone with actual experience of doing that.

So, why did they not have Leinders on the Tour with them?

Expert temporary staff trains permanent staff - that's pretty basic management, Bernie

TheYorkshireMan

stagehopper wrote:

Saw the average speeds earlier:

2012 39.83 - Wiggins - everyone claims to be a very easy parcours
2011 39.79 - Evans - said to have been a hard parcours
2010 39.59 Schleck
2009 40.32 Contador
2008 40.49 Sastre
2007 39.23 Contador
2006 40.78 Pereiro
2005 41.65 Armstrong
2004 40.55 Armstrong
2003 40.94 Armstrong
2002 39.92 Armstrong
2001 40.07 Armstrong
2000 39.57 Armstrong
1999 40.28 Armstrong
1998 39.98 Pantani

times in bold faster than this year.

Impressive, isn't it, how close Wiggins' winning average speed is to all those who won at the height of the 'Epo era'? Things certainly haven't gone back to the days of Hinault and so forth when the average speed was often little more than 36 Km/hr, or even less.

TheYorkshireMan

RichN95 wrote:

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

why did they not have Leinders on the Tour with them?

Expert temporary staff trains permanent staff - that's pretty basic management, Bernie

I think the question many have on their minds is what other 'expertise' Leinders might have passed on, given that it has been reported that his job at Rabobank was to manage the rider's doping so that they did not harm their health or test positive...

bartman100

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

Saw the average speeds earlier:

2012 39.83 - Wiggins - everyone claims to be a very easy parcours
2011 39.79 - Evans - said to have been a hard parcours
2010 39.59 Schleck
2009 40.32 Contador
2008 40.49 Sastre
2007 39.23 Contador
2006 40.78 Pereiro
2005 41.65 Armstrong
2004 40.55 Armstrong
2003 40.94 Armstrong
2002 39.92 Armstrong
2001 40.07 Armstrong
2000 39.57 Armstrong
1999 40.28 Armstrong
1998 39.98 Pantani

times in bold faster than this year.

Impressive, isn't it, how close Wiggins' winning average speed is to all those who won at the height of the 'Epo era'? Things certainly haven't gone back to the days of Hinault and so forth when the average speed was often little more than 36 Km/hr, or even less.

Yes it is impressive - but without the sarcastic intonation. Improvements in kit, training methods, science and rider welfare are bound to reap natural rewards. If anything, surely the fact that the average is not significantly higher than previous years points to a clean rider.

FIWIW, I'd rather have Kimmage asking awkward questions - he's a necessary thorn in the side, even if he does lack tact sometimes. Brailsford needs to seriously question the hiring of Leinders given their much trumpeted anti-doping stance.

As far as Brad's supposed friendship with LA? Kimmage doesn't do himself any favours with that line of enquiry.

Turfle

And they're going far slower up the climbs, as I've no doubt "TheYorkshireMan" knows.

RichN95.

The only thing that average speeds tell you is how bothered the peloton was about racing on the flat stages. In Hinault's day he'd hand out a bollocking if people attacked before the TV cameras turned up. Wiggins took over 87 hours to do the course. He was proper racing for six of those hours at most.

Anyone who uses average speeds to make a point about doping is pretty clueless.

ddraver

How many Versions of yourself do you have bernie? This one goes back to 2009 FFS!? Do you set them up and store them for backup or something?

FransJacques

Can't compare to Hinault's era. Don't forget that circa 1987 or 1988 the ASO drastically cut back kilometrage from 4100-4300 to 3200, although it has since crept up they've not again been > 4000 kms.

Heck, they used to have 4/5 TTs plus split stages (2 a day). That's some serious Tour de Francis territory :-)

mididoctors

greasedscotsman wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

mididoctors wrote:

they have to be clean

if sky doped it will come out and I dont think cycling or the tour will survive yet another false dawn scandal

You could say the same thing about US Postal after Festina scandal.

there has only been one false dawn....

Wasn't the Tour in 1968 called the Tour de Health, after Tom Simpson death the previous year? I think there have been quite a few false dawns.

well I have to confess I wasn't following the 68 tour so you may have me there

however I hold that the density of press coverage globally is a qualitative change compared to the sixties.

the doping stories are a almost a bigger facet of the tour than the race now... a sky scandal in the next 5 years would be a catastrophe... basically it would mean the sport is impossible to clean up and perhaps to hard not to go down that road... riders who clearly had "clean intentions" have effectively capitulated to the old model.

OTOH if the story is straight up?

my gut feeling is BW is clean and the team is as well... however this sports history is filthy so I can see that the cynical position is not that unreasonable

if it did all go to sh1t and sky revealed itself as a hotbed of organised team doping I wouldn't be that shocked just disappointed.

rockmount

stagehopper wrote:

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

I also see that the average speed for this year's race was a shade under 40 Km hour, faster than Evans managed last year, Contador managed in 2007 and 2010, Armstrong managed in 2002 and 2002, Riis managed in 1996, faster than all of Indurain's wins and so on. OK, so the course affects the average speed, but there doesn't seem to be much evidence that, overall, the race has slowed down significantly.

Makes you wonder why everyone used to bother with all that Epo and blood-doping malarky!

Saw the average speeds earlier:

2012 39.83 - Wiggins - everyone claims to be a very easy parcours
2011 39.79 - Evans - said to have been a hard parcours
2010 39.59 Schleck
2009 40.32 Contador
2008 40.49 Sastre
2007 39.23 Contador
2006 40.78 Pereiro
2005 41.65 Armstrong
2004 40.55 Armstrong
2003 40.94 Armstrong
2002 39.92 Armstrong
2001 40.07 Armstrong
2000 39.57 Armstrong
1999 40.28 Armstrong
1998 39.98 Pantani

times in bold faster than this year.

Wiggo 2009 40.27 .. how did you miss that one ? statistics eh, all bollox !

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

The only thing that average speeds tell you is how bothered the peloton was about racing on the flat stages. In Hinault's day he'd hand out a bollocking if people attacked before the TV cameras turned up. Wiggins took over 87 hours to do the course. He was proper racing for six of those hours at most.

Anyone who uses average speeds to make a point about doping is pretty clueless.

This.

Speed on the flat is almost entirely irrelevant, if you're in the peloton and out of the wind you won't be putting out anything like a suspicious amount of power.

Speed in the mountains is decisive, and there they were significantly slower than in the EPO heyday.

Average speed is also completely useless. Sky maintained a high speed to control the race and avoid attacks. In the bad days you could easily have stages that were fairly slow on average, but where someone finished it by putting out a million watts for an hour on the last climb.

Bakunin

Kimmage criticizing Lance/Postal = good
Kimmage criticizing Wiggins/Sky = bad

One minute a hero, one minute a zero.

dennisn

Admittedly, since I'm over here and most of you are over there I'll confess to not following Kimmage or his writtings. It's just that I thought everyone "over there"
felt that he was all knowing(i.e. the LA thing). Sounds like he's going from hero to zero
in very short order with this Wiggins thing. Can't imagine how he would think that slamming BW would work out well for him. Then again I'm "over here". :?

greasedscotsman

mididoctors wrote:

well I have to confess I wasn't following the 68 tour so you may have me there

however I hold that the density of press coverage globally is a qualitative change compared to the sixties.

the doping stories are a almost a bigger facet of the tour than the race now... a sky scandal in the next 5 years would be a catastrophe... basically it would mean the sport is impossible to clean up and perhaps to hard not to go down that road... riders who clearly had "clean intentions" have effectively capitulated to the old model.

OTOH if the story is straight up?

my gut feeling is BW is clean and the team is as well... however this sports history is filthy so I can see that the cynical position is not that unreasonable

if it did all go to sh1t and sky revealed itself as a hotbed of organised team doping I wouldn't be that shocked just disappointed.

Well, I wasn't following the Tour in '68 either, but I've lost count of the times we've been told about a new generation of clean riders and yet they still keep being caught cheating. I certainly don't buy into the arguments being put forward in this thread, such high average speed being proof of cheating. I am quite prepared to give any rider or team the benefit of the doubt, but like you, I think I would be disappointed rather than shocked if Wiggins or someone else from Team Sky failed a doping test.

nathancom

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

why did they not have Leinders on the Tour with them?

Expert temporary staff trains permanent staff - that's pretty basic management, Bernie

I think the question many have on their minds is what other 'expertise' Leinders might have passed on, given that it has been reported that his job at Rabobank was to manage the rider's doping so that they did not harm their health or test positive...

Basically you are asking BW to prove a negative and that is just not possible, so petty insinuations in the absence of evidence are entirely unfair. He denies doping and people have every reason to believe him unless you or someone else comes up with evidence beyond avg speeds and past associations of one member of the Sky medical team.

How much time did Brailsford have to mull over the appointment of Leinders during the Vuelta? How much time did he have to vet him? How many experienced cycling doctors were unattached to a team at that time? Sure the appointment is not a great one but then have you ever made a bad decision. Your insinuations manage to shine on your own cynicism, not the cynicism of the riders in Team Sky.

nathancom

greasedscotsman wrote:

Well, I wasn't following the Tour in '68 either, but I've lost count of the times we've been told about a new generation of clean riders and yet they still keep being caught cheating. I certainly don't buy into the arguments being put forward in this thread, such high average speed being proof of cheating. I am quite prepared to give any rider or team the benefit of the doubt, but like you, I think I would be disappointed rather than shocked if Wiggins or someone else from Team Sky failed a doping test.

Honestly, I would be extremely shocked since Team Sky and the Olympic team are extensions of one another. This would be organized doping on a East German scale that would require a massive conspiracy within British sport. The reputational risk would be incalculable especially with us just about to hold the Olympic games.

greasedscotsman

nathancom wrote:

Honestly, I would be extremely shocked since Team Sky and the Olympic team are extensions of one another. This would be organized doping on a East German scale that would require a massive conspiracy within British sport. The reputational risk would be incalculable especially with us just about to hold the Olympic games.

I don't see why it's any greater risk than Contador or Schleck cheating, don't they have as much to lose? Anyway, wouldn't they just use the standard line about not knowing what that particular rider was up to and that they were working alone.

nathancom

greasedscotsman wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Honestly, I would be extremely shocked since Team Sky and the Olympic team are extensions of one another. This would be organized doping on a East German scale that would require a massive conspiracy within British sport. The reputational risk would be incalculable especially with us just about to hold the Olympic games.

I don't see why it's any greater risk than Contador or Schleck cheating, don't they have as much to lose? Anyway, wouldn't they just use the standard line about not knowing what that particular rider was up to and that they were working alone.

Well they are not British and not connected to the GB Olympic team whereas Sky and the Olympic team have a huge crossover. Also considering how SKY/GB is set up how could they really silo off a doper. Every member of the team and every medal won would be tarnished back to 2004. Do you believe Brailsford has created this or just got a syringe out for the last 10 years, or did he suddenly find TdF so much greater a challenge than Olympics that he decided to risk it all.

TheYorkshireMan

‘They could have afforded any doctor but they went for one who was involved in one of the many scandals that have dogged this sport’

Sky are the most monied team out there. Rupert Murdoch is throwing cash at them. Their budget is eye-wateringly vast. They could have afforded any doctor they wanted, but they went for one who has been involved in one of the many scandals that have dogged this sport. People have a right to press Brailsford on this issue. What about the zero-tolerance? What about the vow that all employees would be clean and would be seen to be clean? And one question for Wiggins – why does he resent people expressing suspicion on Tour in precisely the same way he did some years back?

Brailsford has announced that Sky are planning to investigate Leinders’ past. This happening only now? Why? Leinders’ past is a matter of public record. It’s all out there. Everybody knows about it. Wouldn’t a team that is sold on the idea of zero-tolerance have done this before they brought him in to the stable in 2010? Brailsford says that, after the death of Gonzalez, he realised that his riders needed special expertise on the medical front, but Leinders, the special expert, hasn’t been on the Tour this year. Had any of Sky’s riders contracted a sudden illness then Leinders was not there to do the job that Brailsford says he was brought in to do.

Are we raining on Wiggins’ parade here?

No, that’s not the intention, though that will be the accusation. The cheerleaders will say that to talk of such things is to damage the sport, that Wiggins deserves better than to have somebody raising questions on this day of days. So much doubt, but one certainty.

The Wiggins of before wouldn’t have minded.

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sun ... -1-2426229

No_Ta_Doctor

sportsscientists.com with their usual excellent input, crunching the numbers:

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/07 ... ssion.html

Worth reading the discussion under the article as well.

nathancom

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sun ... -1-2426229

This is just insinuation from a bunch of hacks trying to sell copy. I heard you once bought a newspaper in the same shop as Fred West. So you must have liked killing people too, prove you haven't...

greasedscotsman

nathancom wrote:

Well they are not British and not connected to the GB Olympic team whereas Sky and the Olympic team have a huge crossover. Also considering how SKY/GB is set up how could they really silo off a doper. Every member of the team and every medal won would be tarnished back to 2004. Do you believe Brailsford has created this or just got a syringe out for the last 10 years, or did he suddenly find TdF so much greater a challenge than Olympics that he decided to risk it all.

Honestly, I don't know if Team Sky and/or the GB Olympic squad are cheating or not and I don't believe you do either.

nathancom

greasedscotsman wrote:

nathancom wrote:

Well they are not British and not connected to the GB Olympic team whereas Sky and the Olympic team have a huge crossover. Also considering how SKY/GB is set up how could they really silo off a doper. Every member of the team and every medal won would be tarnished back to 2004. Do you believe Brailsford has created this or just got a syringe out for the last 10 years, or did he suddenly find TdF so much greater a challenge than Olympics that he decided to risk it all.

Honestly, I don't know if Team Sky and/or the GB Olympic squad are cheating or not and I don't believe you do either.

Ok, so because no one knows we should presume that they are? That is what the Yorkshireman is urging.

ddraver

Tell him - where exactly does he say Sky are doping? :P

Doubtless it will appeal the conspiracy trolls. Absolutely pathetic.

There you are Bernie - It came off of a newspaper website so it MUST be true!