Kimmage, anyone?

RichN95.

jibberjim wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Brailsford answered the question on one of the rest days- can't remember where the article is though. T'would appear Kimmage has nt read it though...

No 'cos Braillsford's answer was garbage, full of holes like why they hid they fact Leinders was working with the team for 3 years - indeed still don't say he's part of their staff. Or why if having a doctor with GT experience is so important, they didn't take their only doctor with GT experience to their most important GT ever.

It has not been answered, doesn't mean their cheating c*nts of course, but they're certainly not transparent or open.

He's been with them for a year and a half, not three year and he's not permanent staff. You find all the races he's been at this year on the team website. They're not hiding him. They take their permenant doctor to GTs. I believe the rules allow Lenders to teach them what be knows.

There's no point asking questions if you've already made up your mind what the answer should be.

ddraver

They did nt hide it (they did nt make a song and dance about it either), Bernie has been posting about him for ages FFS! They needed a doctor with GC experience to train other doctors with none - That does nt take too long...

Which other Team Doctor with 20-30 years experience of looking after riders do you suggest they'd got? And how do you intend to show he's cleaner than Leinders?

RichN95.

Timoid. wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

First of all, Kimmage didn't 'call out' any of those people, he just jumped on the coat tails of L'equipe or David Walsh.

Secondly, he doesn't call him a doping doctor, and neither does anyone De Rooy or Dekker. They just mention that non-specific Rabo medical staff knew that riders were doping and looked after them. The worst allegation is that he gave someone salt tablets. No-one has suggested that he doped anyone. It's been turned into that by others - the ones who ironically demand honesty. .

De Rooy and Dekker stated that Rabobank tolerated doping and the doctors adminstered it. That to my mind makes a doctor who has been involved in doping practices.

If you cannot see that then you have no objectivity.

This does not mean neccessarily that anyone on Sky is a doper, but does meant that Sky's ethical hiring policy is called into question. Why not hire a different experienced doctor without such a shady past?

Go on then, show me one quote from De Rooy or Dekker which states that Rabo doctors (or Lenders specifically) administered doping products.

timoid.

"RichN95 wrote:

Go on then, show me one quote from De Rooy or Dekker which states that Rabo doctors (or Lenders specifically) administered doping products.

According to the Volkskrant, Theo de Rooy who was team manager from 2003 to 2007, did not deny that there was doping on the team. “If it happened, it was a deliberate decision by the medical staff,” he said

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/raboban ... ooy-claims

RichN95.

Timoid. wrote:

"RichN95 wrote:

Go on then, show me one quote from De Rooy or Dekker which states that Rabo doctors (or Lenders specifically) administered doping products.

According to the Volkskrant, Theo de Rooy who was team manager from 2003 to 2007, did not deny that there was doping on the team. “If it happened, it was a deliberate decision by the medical staff,” he said

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/raboban ... ooy-claims

[/quote]
Yes, they made a deliberate decision to tolerate doping, I'm not arguing against that. But you claimed they administered the doping, a far more serious charge - that would make them actual doping doctors.. Where's the quote to back that up? That's what I asked for.

timoid.

Deleted to clarify quotes. Reposted below.

RichN95.

I'll delete too then

timoid.

RichN95 wrote:

Yes, they made a deliberate decision to tolerate doping, I'm not arguing against that. But you claimed they administered the doping, a far more serious charge - that would make them actual doping doctors.. Where's the quote to back that up? That's what I asked for.

Read the article:

De Rooy, who refered to the whole matter as “medical care” rather than doping, indicated that the efforts were to some extent overseen by someone within the team structure. "If you have a number of knowledgeable people who pick up the right signals from the riders, you can brake and steer them."

The former manager said that the team took no “unreasonable risks” in the matter. "But when it comes to medical care, you need to find the limit

He also acknowledged that he had disciplined riders who wanted to organize their own medical care outside the team structure. “Michael Rasmussen was not the first, for that matter. I had to take disciplinary action once before. By not using riders in races, for example.”

Note: Rabobank team doctors are responsible for medical care inside the team. Outside medical care is not tolerated. Who do you think the knowledgeable people were that were able to find the limit?

RichN95.

Again, there's no quote stating that Rabo doctors administered doping products, just De Rooy being incredibly vague and really saying nothing.
And of course, 'someone within the team' is automatically Leinders isn't it. No-one has ever said he doped anyone, but he seems to have been elevated to Ferrari status by people who think they are objective.

Dorset_Boy

The doctors could easily have had the role of saying your body can take x amount only, but not administer it, leaving that up to the riders themselves. That's providing medical care, is it being a doping doctor?

andyp

RichN95 wrote:

Again, there's no quote stating that Rabo doctors administered doping products, just De Rooy being incredibly vague and really saying nothing.
And of course, 'someone within the team' is automatically Leinders isn't it. No-one has ever said he doped anyone, but he seems to have been elevated to Ferrari status by people who think they are objective.

This ^.

Plus De Rooy is hardly a credible witness is he? It was clear that doping was at least tolerated by Rabobank, as the Rasmussen and Humanplasma affairs prove, and De Rooy, as General Manager, had overall responsibility for this. That he tried to blame others, and the team medical staff are easy scapegoasts, and absolve himself of responsibility should set alarm bells ringing.

nathancom

andyp wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Again, there's no quote stating that Rabo doctors administered doping products, just De Rooy being incredibly vague and really saying nothing.
And of course, 'someone within the team' is automatically Leinders isn't it. No-one has ever said he doped anyone, but he seems to have been elevated to Ferrari status by people who think they are objective.

This ^.

Plus De Rooy is hardly a credible witness is he? It was clear that doping was at least tolerated by Rabobank, as the Rasmussen and Humanplasma affairs prove, and De Rooy, as General Manager, had overall responsibility for this. That he tried to blame others, and the team medical staff are easy scapegoasts, and absolve himself of responsibility should set alarm bells ringing.

This ^.

De Rooy is clearly trying to set the a point in the chain above which no blame can travel. How could he not have directly sanctioned these activities yet then claim the doctors were blame. Why would team doctors (as opposed to someone like Ferrari) dope riders unless directed to by the team?

Anyway, why is it reasonable for riders from that era who doped to be rehabilitated to continue their living but somehow unreasonable for the support staff involved to be similarly rehabilitated? Many riders and support staff were really victims of the cheating culture created within the sport by the real drivers behind it, men like Ferrari and UCI itself.

mididoctors

Timoid. wrote:

Why not hire a different experienced doctor without such a shady past?

I can see why you would want a doc who knew about that side of things even if your intention was to be clean OTOH it doesn't look great....

in a way you may really want to know what can be done via doping if your intention is to win without it..

ATEOTD we are just a load of gossips.

I'm sort 180 degrees with wiggo and sky, most GC riders I view with suspicion that they are tooled up but with wiggo I'm suspicious he might not be!

If it ever came to light Brasilford is finished..... my read of the man is he just isn't going to risk it.

as for wiggo, his rest day interview had a lot of between the lines stuff about doping, perhaps he will use his "political capital" to change attitudes amongst riders without alienating them. which is the line he must tread.
if it is all a sham then he is the c@@t.... for real

jimmythecuckoo

Bakunin wrote:

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

One minute a hero, one minute a zero.

Much as I would like to argue that post... I really can't

mididoctors

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Bakunin wrote:

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

One minute a hero, one minute a zero.

Much as I would like to argue that post... I really can't

there clearly is a knee jerk pro british bias

dennisn

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Bakunin wrote:

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

One minute a hero, one minute a zero.

Much as I would like to argue that post... I really can't

Maybe this Kimmage guy is trying to become the guy you love to hate. This seems to be a popular thing, at least here in the States, for people trying to get more time on the TV and more of their printed word published. Doubt the he is into exposing truth
so much as becoming more "popular" and therefore making more money. What's that old saying? Follow the money.

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

Maybe this Kimmage guy is trying to become the guy you love to hate. This seems to be a popular thing, at least here in the States, for people trying to get more time on the TV and more of their printed word published. Doubt the he is into exposing truth
so much as becoming more "popular" and therefore making more money. What's that old saying? Follow the money.

Knowing what kimmage is like, he doesn't care if people love him or hate him. He is into exposing the truth. Looking into the saga of the Irish swimmer I mentioned above

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Maybe this Kimmage guy is trying to become the guy you love to hate. This seems to be a popular thing, at least here in the States, for people trying to get more time on the TV and more of their printed word published. Doubt the he is into exposing truth
so much as becoming more "popular" and therefore making more money. What's that old saying? Follow the money.

Knowing what kimmage is like, he doesn't care if people love him or hate him. He is into exposing the truth. Looking into the saga of the Irish swimmer I mentioned above

You may be right. If that's the case he would seem to be a rare breed indeed. A journalist actually looking for truth and to do the right thing instead of looking to become a bit more famous and a bit richer.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Maybe this Kimmage guy is trying to become the guy you love to hate. This seems to be a popular thing, at least here in the States, for people trying to get more time on the TV and more of their printed word published. Doubt the he is into exposing truth
so much as becoming more "popular" and therefore making more money. What's that old saying? Follow the money.

Knowing what kimmage is like, he doesn't care if people love him or hate him. He is into exposing the truth. Looking into the saga of the Irish swimmer I mentioned above

He's fairly selective about what truth he tries to expose though. He's written about rugby for years, but never touched on the steroids issue. His last book was about a rugby player who was a paralysed in a collapsed scrum, but he's never questioned how the players that collapse those scrum got to be 18 stone of pure muscle.

smithy21

Some of Kimmage's stuff is very good and there is a lot to admire about his writing.

However, I was disappointed with this article. It seems to be a hastily cobbled together response to Wiggins winning the Tour. Was he a bit short of cash this month and needed to get something published to pay the bills?

dennisn

smithy21 wrote:

Some of Kimmage's stuff is very good and there is a lot to admire about his writing.

However, I was disappointed with this article. It seems to be a hastily cobbled together response to Wiggins winning the Tour. Was he a bit short of cash this month and needed to get something published to pay the bills?

My impression is that he writes because he's paid to write. Just like you or I are paid to do whatever it is we do. He has certain deadlines that are imposed on him to get things done. Just Like you and I. Hastily cobbled together? Maybe, and then again the people who pay him also have a major influence on what he writes about. Just like the people who pay us have a major influence on what we do and when we do it.
Still, like you say "disappointed" wouldn't be a wrong word to use.

Jez mon

I think the Daily Mail were looking for a story with a negative spin on cycling after Wiggo's win and the name Kimmage came up. Kimmage then re-hashed some stuff he'd previously written, along with some new stuff...

Scanning through it again, it just looks like a better written, less libellous, version of some of the posts made in the clinic.

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

My impression is that he writes because he's paid to write. Just like you or I are paid to do whatever it is we do.

So in Dennis land, people either a) do what they're paid to do regardless of what they believe and b) drink beer

?

colint

the article is a complete load of bollox, Kimmage needs to keep doping in the limelight or his career is over. Basically says Wiggo was under Kimmages own biased and perverse suspicion just because he dared to have a chat with Armstrong. He's letting his own hatred of Armstrong cloud his judgement, but that's nothing new. So according to Kimmage, talking to Armstrong and doing well = doper

The questions have been answered by Sky, it's a none story. Let's focus on the positives of this cleaner era and drop one trick bitter self obesessed end bells like Kimmage

iainf72

I don't think Sky are doing anything terrible but let's not delude ourselves that they are transparent. They are improving but need to do better

jerry3571

As I said before that Doping has gone on for the last 120 years so lets get some perspective. The Sponsor has a bad year with the Leveson enquiry and needs a good news day . Sky's 5 year plan is cut short to a 3 year plan. At the end of the day, Sky/News International (The Boss of the whole concern) wants a happy story about their Company. Let's just say they (Sky/Team Sky) made it happen. Glad that Wiggo won but I hope that he doesn't end up like a Jan Ullrich or worse like Pantani at the end of it all.
If he's like Carlos Sastre then he's real lucky; to come and go with a Yellow Jersey and without a sniff of anything unlike LA, Contador, Pantani, Landis, Rasmussen, Riis and any other TDF winners who I forgot to mention (I guess Periero and Delgado have some shady bits also).


Jerry

PS- I guess if anyone gets too much on Team Sky's then Murdock will be looking for them. If Murdock can scare the Bee Jeesus out Prime Ministers then anyone's for the kicking.
(I love this sport!! Fascinating!)

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

My impression is that he writes because he's paid to write. Just like you or I are paid to do whatever it is we do.

So in Dennis land, people either a) do what they're paid to do regardless of what they believe and b) drink beer

?

Hmmmmm. Pretty much, with the exception that I have drastically reduced my beer consumption. It was my doctor telling me what to do, among others. She said I was pre-diabetic and had better lose about 40 pounds. I'm telling ya cutting out the booze really works. But back on topic. Aren't we all paid to do whatever it is we do even if we don't agree with it sometimes. Gotta pay the rent. Not saying he's sacrficed his scruples and wrote something he didn't believe in. It's just that it wouldn't be the first time a journalist put down something dubious on paper.

Bakunin

iainf72 wrote:

I don't think Sky are doing anything terrible but let's not delude ourselves that they are transparent. They are improving but need to do better

I think this is key -- forget Kimmage and whether he has a chip on his shoulder (he should), forget whether Wiggins has stepped back from an earlier position (he hasn't).

Sky came on the scene and made some claims -- they haven't lived up to them completely. But they are not the only ones.

I sometimes wonder whether Kimmage (and some of us) are confused about Wiggins -- he is a bike rider, not an anti-doping activist. He has made himself into a very good road cyclist and he has had a brilliant year. Three cheers for him. Of course, the image of him tossing his Cofidis kit in the bin after his team was asked to leave the tour is so powerful. And his anti-doping comments were dead-on.

I always thought that Wiggins said and did things that JV should have done. As such, Wiggins always carried a dual burden -- call out the cheats and win races. A tough thing to do.

Spiny_Norman

Bakunin wrote:

Sky came on the scene and made some claims -- they haven't lived up to them completely. But they are not the only ones.

IIRC, when Sky were first set up with these grand visions, they were widely mocked and called naive, idealistic arrivistes. Now that they've started to rethink some of their distinctive but extreme (and frankly unworkable) positions, they're being criticised for failing to live up to the exact same unworkable standards they were originally mocked for.

Transparency is generally a good thing, but I don't expect them to publish precise details of all the things that give them the edge. Their aim is to win, and it would be madness to do anything to jeopardise that. They're a professional cycling team, not the doping police.

rick_chasey

http://cyclocosm.com/2012/07/the-new-reality/

Cyclocosm's still pretty good when he posts....

His take on le dopage and kimmage at the bottom.