Paul Kimmage.....
Comments
-
one happy ddraver0
-
0
-
r0bh wrote:powerbookboy wrote:P.P.S. I know he was concentrating on the track prior to 2009. Doesn't change the fact he had no pedigree, so his 2009 results where a shock. A pleasant one, but a shock non the less.
A multiple world and Olympic pursuit champion has "no pedigree"? :shock:
Bit of a difference between going into the red for 3mins 20secs and doing 3 weeks grind dontcha think? Different disciplines. So yes, I think 'no pedigree' is a fair description.0 -
...until Vaughters looks at the numbers he produced doing one 3min 20sec effort and pointed out that he does nothing different to a long steady climb...(can't remember the exact quote I admit, it was much more sciency)
Shiny if you re about, I need your help again!
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:...until Vaughters looks at the numbers he produced doing one 3min 20sec effort and pointed out that he does nothing different to a long steady climb...(can't remember the exact quote I admit, it was much more sciency)
Shiny if you re about, I need your help again!
90% of his 4 minute power was produced aerobically (as opposed to anaerobically), was the explanation I think"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
If powerbookboy were actually Kimmage, we could have all this nonsense sorted out in a jiffy
0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:If powerbookboy were actually Kimmage, we could have all this nonsense sorted out in a jiffy
Sadly not :P0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:ddraver wrote:...until Vaughters looks at the numbers he produced doing one 3min 20sec effort and pointed out that he does nothing different to a long steady climb...(can't remember the exact quote I admit, it was much more sciency)
Shiny if you re about, I need your help again!
90% of his 4 minute power was produced aerobically (as opposed to anaerobically), was the explanation I think
Do you have a link I can read? 'twas good they published his 2009 Power stats, shame (but logical) Sky stopped that.
Doesn't change my original point. If the ability to thrash for 4km was an indiciator of GT capability, wouldn't you expect to see mad contract wars over the latest and greatest track stars? Or a long history of track to road transitions? You don't. Which pretty much defines what pedigree means according to my dictionary.
What this tells us is that Wiggins is exceptional. What our history tells us is that exceptional riders have to be questioned.
Exceptional riders who have unusual physiologies have to be questioned particularly closely. I remember reading with awe about Indurian's freaky lung capacity, abnormal heart, Armstrong's magical abilities to clear lactate, weird pedalling action, etc. Some of which have subsequently proved to be utter tosh.
Cycling's recent (ok, entire history) past tells us to distrust anomalies. Anomalies that surround Drs or entire teams must be viewed with particular scepticism. That seems to be the starting point of good journalism.
In the meantime, I'll just enjoy the racing, and will (like most of us) have a shopping list of barely logical reasons for my peloton favourites.
I like Contador. I don't like JRod. Why? I have no idea. I disliked Armstrong intensely, very fond of Fat Jan. I like Boonen, I don't like Gilbert. Not logical.
I'm glad it's a journalist's job to try to sort the fact from the fiction. If it was down to people like me you'd never get any decent reporting done.0 -
A) Different riders ride pursuits in different ways.
There is a long history of riders riding the road season in the summer then riding on the track in the Winter. Not doing so is a VERY modern thing (in fact it aligns fairly closely with the rise of EPO, so you could say the Wiggins is a return to the norm). Look at Merckx for the perhaps ultimate example.
I'm not trying to be a d1ck about this, but what your posting is just not true...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:A) Different riders ride pursuits in different ways. There is a long history of riders riding the road season in the summer then riding on the track in the Winter. Not doing so is a VERY modern thing (in fact it aligns fairly closely with the rise of EPO, so you could say the Wiggins is a return to the norm). Look at Merckx for the perhaps ultimate example.
I'm not trying to be a d1ck about this, but what your posting is just not true...
This. Look at the great champions right up to Hinault and a lot of them had a track pedigree.
As to the source of that information, it was a Vaughters tweet during this years Tour responding to the constant "he's doping, right?" I think the point he was making was that BC had no interest in identifying his true potential on the road (in the sense that it was not their focus and they weren't looking for it) and his pro teams had seen him in the way that pro teams see pursuiters nowadays: A big engine with a Time Trial on him.
His preliminary physiological testing at Garmin revealed something different and he encouraged him to follow it."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:ddraver wrote:A) Different riders ride pursuits in different ways. There is a long history of riders riding the road season in the summer then riding on the track in the Winter. Not doing so is a VERY modern thing (in fact it aligns fairly closely with the rise of EPO, so you could say the Wiggins is a return to the norm). Look at Merckx for the perhaps ultimate example.
I'm not trying to be a d1ck about this, but what your posting is just not true...
This. Look at the great champions right up to Hinault and a lot of them had a track pedigree.
As to the source of that information, it was a Vaughters tweet during this years Tour responding to the constant "he's doping, right?" I think the point he was making was that BC had no interest in identifying his true potential on the road (in the sense that it was not their focus and they weren't looking for it) and his pro teams had seen him in the way that pro teams see pursuiters nowadays: A big engine with a Time Trial on him.
His preliminary physiological testing at Garmin revealed something different and he encouraged him to follow it.
Can I double 'this'
To give Vaughters credit, as soon as the 'Wiggins and Sky must be doping' Twitter stuff got going during the Dauphine he was onto it and posting some very valid facts like this.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:disgruntledgoat wrote:ddraver wrote:A) Different riders ride pursuits in different ways. There is a long history of riders riding the road season in the summer then riding on the track in the Winter. Not doing so is a VERY modern thing (in fact it aligns fairly closely with the rise of EPO, so you could say the Wiggins is a return to the norm). Look at Merckx for the perhaps ultimate example.
I'm not trying to be a d1ck about this, but what your posting is just not true...
This. Look at the great champions right up to Hinault and a lot of them had a track pedigree.
As to the source of that information, it was a Vaughters tweet during this years Tour responding to the constant "he's doping, right?" I think the point he was making was that BC had no interest in identifying his true potential on the road (in the sense that it was not their focus and they weren't looking for it) and his pro teams had seen him in the way that pro teams see pursuiters nowadays: A big engine with a Time Trial on him.
His preliminary physiological testing at Garmin revealed something different and he encouraged him to follow it.
Can I double 'this'
To give Vaughters credit, as soon as the 'Wiggins and Sky must be doping' Twitter stuff got going during the Dauphine he was onto it and posting some very valid facts like this.
In a way, it's a very interesting case study on how to run a successful team with a limited budget. Take guys who are out of work and therefore without large contract demands, test them before you sign them, realise theres a new dimension to them others haven't utilised it and take a chance.
I for one was worried Wiggins would be out of the pro peloton when his Highroad contract wasn't renewed, amazing how it turned out."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
powerbookboy wrote:
What this tells us is that Wiggins is exceptional. What our history tells us is that exceptional riders have to be questioned.
Exceptional riders who have unusual physiologies have to be questioned particularly closely. I remember reading with awe about Indurian's freaky lung capacity, abnormal heart, Armstrong's magical abilities to clear lactate, weird pedalling action, etc. Some of which have subsequently proved to be utter tosh.
Cycling's recent (ok, entire history) past tells us to distrust anomalies. Anomalies that surround Drs or entire teams must be viewed with particular scepticism. That seems to be the starting point of good journalism.
Other than comaparisons with past dopers and their magic physiology and pedal strokes, what was it specifically about Wiggins' performance in the 2012 tour that was anomalous? I'm genuinely curious....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
DG, have you read Cycling Anthology yet?
I know that you're talking about Highroad, but essay in there by Daniel Friebe called Cyclonomics. Basically Bob Stapleton looked at the Moneyball approach and applied it at Highroad. Took riders who were underperforming with their previous teams so could be got at bargain prices, but the problems preventing them from performing were fixable. as far as Stapleton could see. For example either Peter Velits or Patrick Gretsch has one leg longer than the other; another rider had personal problems that the team had him work with a counsellor to resolve, as condition of his contract; another rider, it was just a matter of their riding position. Really fascinating stuff.
Problem is that in 08 when Brad was at Highroad, his focus was all track, it was all about the Worlds and Beijing, and on the road it was only about leading out Cav for the races he did manage to do around his track programme.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:DG, have you read Cycling Anthology yet?
Essay in there by Daniel Friebe called Cyclonomics. Basically Bob Stapleton looked at the Moneyball approach and applied it at Highroad. Took riders who were underperforming with their previous teams so could be got at bargain prices, but the problems preventing them from performing were fixable. as far as Stapleton could see. For example either Peter Velits or Patrick Gretsch has one leg longer than the other; another rider had personal problems that the team had him work with a counsellor to resolve, as condition of his contract; another rider, it was just a matter of their riding position. Really fascinating stuff.
I've been meaning to pick it up. I love Moneyball, as a baseball fan, so should give that a look. I thought the whole thing with Bill Beane though was that he argued you can't change people and that the numbers were the sole arbiter. But obviously, cycling doesn't have repeatable set pieces like baseball.
As to Kimmage, I thought what journalists did was take their questions and scepticism and work on them by means of research and investigation before publishing a watertight, fact checked piece containing detailed allegations or revelations. Not sling mud in public without any corrobaration."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Get it - its the best £7.99 I've spent in a long time. One of those books you'll just keep on coming back to and re-reading the essays.
Yeah, it was more that Stapleton modified the Bill Beane approach to apply it to cycling.
Ah, well you've hit on the thing about Kimmage. I think it was Rick, maybe also Rich, who've pointed out in this thread that Kimmage doesnt actually go in for all that pesky tedious donkey work of checking, cross checking, corroborating, tracking down and interviewing people for testimonies, first hand accounts. In contrast, David Walsh does that - which is why he has been able to produce such credible work such as LA Confidentiel, From Lance to Landis etc.0 -
ddraver wrote:A) Different riders ride pursuits in different ways. There is a long history of riders riding the road season in the summer then riding on the track in the Winter. Not doing so is a VERY modern thing (in fact it aligns fairly closely with the rise of EPO, so you could say the Wiggins is a return to the norm). Look at Merckx for the perhaps ultimate example.
I'm not trying to be a d1ck about this, but what your posting is just not true...
I'm looking and not finding historical records for 4K world pursuit champions. Can anyone dig them out?
Merckx perhaps isn't the best example to use in this context?0 -
also in the Anthology is 'Project Wiggins' - admittedly written by his ghost writer Fotheringham, but then he does have good access to the main man.
**SPOILER ALERT** - he lays out v clearly why given the Sky approach (team not just leader doing big camps etc - which other teams can't afford / won't do); the actual team - GT podium placer as his mountain goat, 3 time World TT champ, excellent talents like Porte etc; the fact that other teams / riders are surprisingly less than professional in some elements of their approach (not recce-ing TTs when they hope to contend? FFS) and concludes given the absence of 1 or 2 big names and it would have been surprising if he didn't win.
Look back at the tour and the fact the other 'big' teams either didnt even really try to take on Sky (Liquigas - and for all his supposed downhill prowess, Nibali supposedly hadn't actually been to ride the slopes prior) or had split leadership issues (BMC) or suffered big crash losses (Garmin) and the race played out as you'd expect in the circumstances and form.
Seriously - Kimmage is making himself look like an idiot - which is a shame. As had been said on here - he just rants about someone winning, not about speed, power or anything resembling evidence. News for you Paul - it's a race, someone actually has to win it.
Also dig out a Marco Pinotti i/v from a couple of years back where he contrasts the diff between an 'old school' team (Lampre) and when he went to the forward thinking Highroad where they actually looked at trying to improve their approach, rather than just fire up on juice. Sky have taken the science approach of Hroad, Garmin etc to the next level with their admittedly hefty budget.0 -
Macaloon wrote:powerbookboy wrote:
What this tells us is that Wiggins is exceptional. What our history tells us is that exceptional riders have to be questioned.
Exceptional riders who have unusual physiologies have to be questioned particularly closely. I remember reading with awe about Indurian's freaky lung capacity, abnormal heart, Armstrong's magical abilities to clear lactate, weird pedalling action, etc. Some of which have subsequently proved to be utter tosh.
Cycling's recent (ok, entire history) past tells us to distrust anomalies. Anomalies that surround Drs or entire teams must be viewed with particular scepticism. That seems to be the starting point of good journalism.
Other than comaparisons with past dopers and their magic physiology and pedal strokes, what was it specifically about Wiggins' performance in the 2012 tour that was anomalous? I'm genuinely curious.
I think his performance was pretty much bang on what I expected. Rode high tempo, used the team exceptionally well, used his TT to good effect to shut the race down. Nothing in there seemed particularly out of place.
The "anomaly" is you want to call it that was 2009, which was a real shocker to me, and 2011, when I started to believe he could win a GT, due to the dramatic weight loss and the seemingly minimal loss of top end power. 2012 seemed to be a progression of what we'd seen in previous years. Others might see 2010 as the anomaly.
As I said perviously in this thread, I happen to think he's "clean", but using his teams technical and financial advantages to turn a Top 10 into a Top 3 rider.
But that doesn't change the fact that you can, and should be asking awkward questions. Sorry, I know it's uncomfortable, but that's our sport. Wiggins probably deserves our trust, but our sport doesn't. Hence he's in the gunsights. Probably pisses him of a treat, hence his sweary "bone idle" rant during the tour. But tough. He knows the deal, he knows his history, he'll get over. Everyone else should, otherwise we'll be back here again in 10 years time asking why no one was asking awkward questions about rider X, Y, Z.
Not very a romantic view of cycling I'll grant you. But hey, when you find your lover's been laughing behind their hand at you for a good few years, you gotta expect it'll take time for wounds to heal...0 -
disgruntledgoat wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:DG, have you read Cycling Anthology yet?
Essay in there by Daniel Friebe called Cyclonomics. Basically Bob Stapleton looked at the Moneyball approach and applied it at Highroad. Took riders who were underperforming with their previous teams so could be got at bargain prices, but the problems preventing them from performing were fixable. as far as Stapleton could see. For example either Peter Velits or Patrick Gretsch has one leg longer than the other; another rider had personal problems that the team had him work with a counsellor to resolve, as condition of his contract; another rider, it was just a matter of their riding position. Really fascinating stuff.
I've been meaning to pick it up. I love Moneyball, as a baseball fan, so should give that a look. I thought the whole thing with Bill Beane though was that he argued you can't change people and that the numbers were the sole arbiter. But obviously, cycling doesn't have repeatable set pieces like baseball.
As to Kimmage, I thought what journalists did was take their questions and scepticism and work on them by means of research and investigation before publishing a watertight, fact checked piece containing detailed allegations or revelations. Not sling mud in public without any corrobaration.
I think you have watched too many episodes of Lou Grant.0 -
What changes is that when you ask those questions and get genuine plausable answers then you stop asking questions until something new turns up. What you re doing (and what Kimmage does) is just throwing wild accusations around. There is a big difference between skepticism and muck slinging...We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
No, have to disagree ddraver old chap, I think powerbookboy makes some decent points in terms of how things have led to some speculation. He's not making accusations a la Kimmage but articulating a few points that we can talk over. I dont think this is powerbookboy's 'slinging mud'. Think this is a decent discussion going on here...and you know I have absolute faith that Sky and Wiggins are clean.
At least we can have exchanges here that dont go into the ludicrous Clinic fantasies (suggestion that Sky's soigneur died as a victim of some team doping experiment during the Vuelta, being one example). And we can have exchanges and put forward views based on facts - seemingly Kimmage can't or won't do similar.0 -
What is Hinault's track pedigree?
It isn't mentioned once on his wiki.
I like to think of him as never going near the track.Contador is the Greatest0 -
If they've got nothing to hide they will be open and honest with Kimmage and any other journalist that asks awkward questions.
They might have a whole heap of tame / bought and paid for journalists and fans (D Millar for one) but to be seen as clean and to be clean are 2 different things.
Considering lottery funding supports the team as well as private money they should be an open book to any awkward questions and should have the answers!0 -
Pardon me, I meant pre-Hinault
Anquetil, Merckx, Coppi, Bartoli, Moser, Saronni, Jan Janssen and so on and so forth."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Rodrego Hernandez wrote:If they've got nothing to hide they will be open and honest with Kimmage and any other journalist that asks awkward questions.
They might have a whole heap of tame / bought and paid for journalists and fans (D Millar for one) but to be seen as clean and to be clean are 2 different things.
Considering lottery funding supports the team as well as private money they should be an open book to any awkward questions and should have the answers!
Ah, the old "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" eh?
Kimmage hasn't asked them any questions that I'm aware of, he's just pointed out inconsistencies in their approach and made insinuations. Walsh asked Brailsford about Lienders and published his answer, stating himself satsisfied with it. What questions, specifically, have Sky not answered that you would like to see them face?"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
frenchfighter wrote:What is Hinault's track pedigree?
It isn't mentioned once on his wiki.
I like to think of him as never going near the track.
Bleeding heck, can you imagine being on the end of a Badger hand-sling in the Madison...0 -
ddraver wrote:What changes is that when you ask those questions and get genuine plausable answers then you stop asking questions until something new turns up. What you re doing (and what Kimmage does) is just throwing wild accusations around. There is a big difference between skepticism and muck slinging...
I'm hoping we're starting from the same page and I've not missed some outrageous slander than Kimmage has made? This seems to be the article that re-awoke this thread. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage ... nd-wiggins
I can't see anything particularly controversial in that article. Seems quite a logical, reasoned stance he's taking. I'd call his view sceptical. I can't see anything in there that isn't either factually accurate, or reasonable speculation. I very much doubt a lawyer could look t it and start drawing up papers.
Doesn't mean to say he's right. But it's perfectly measured, logical analysis.
Either way, I'll withdraw before I ruffle any more feathers. Races starting in the Southern hemisphere soon!0
