Paul Kimmage.....

joelsim

I suspect at the very least it stops some promising young talents from progressing knowing that they will be faced with a choice of doing it or not succeeding. It wouldn't bother me personally, I'd be first in the queue for some Belgian Mix!

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

I suspect at the very least it stops some promising young talents from progressing knowing that they will be faced with a choice of doing it or not succeeding. It wouldn't bother me personally, I'd be first in the queue for some Belgian Mix!

With all due respect you, by your own admission, have only been watching this sport for a couple of years. You have also recently listed the cycling books you have read, almost all of which are about doping.

At this stage you knowledge of cycling is 90% doping. And not even doping today, doping circa 2004. Those who us who have been around longer can recognise that the sport has moved on from those days.

At the moment you are like someone who has only read one book of philosophy and thinks they have all the solutions to life.

Richmond Racer

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Back to this Kimmage movie...its going to be all about Kimmage as Hero and The Only Speaker of the Truth, isnt it...

*yawns and wanders off again*

Hold on I know I'm late to the party & have not gone through this whole tread but they are making a film of him?

See previous page. A video about the Hero that is Kimmage and how he was the whistleblower and responsible for bringing down Lance etc. Oh and about him going off to this year's Tour determined to get to the bottom of the evil cheating Sky team etc etc. Fast forward to the finished product and there'll be footage of him skulking around the outside of the Death Star, trying desparately to see through the windows, and going through bin bags. Probably just as well Froome's designated leader, he's a very cool customer - I could see someone else (no names) lamping Kimmage.

danlikesbikes

Richmond Racer wrote:

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Back to this Kimmage movie...its going to be all about Kimmage as Hero and The Only Speaker of the Truth, isnt it...

*yawns and wanders off again*

Hold on I know I'm late to the party & have not gone through this whole tread but they are making a film of him?

See previous page. A video about the Hero that is Kimmage and how he was the whistleblower and responsible for bringing down Lance etc. Oh and about him going off to this year's Tour determined to get to the bottom of the evil cheating Sky team etc etc. Fast forward to the finished product and there'll be footage of him skulking around the outside of the Death Star, trying desparately to see through the windows, and going through bin bags. Probably just as well Froome's designated leader, he's a very cool customer - I could see someone else (no names) lamping Kimmage.

Or trying to park a bike up his...... well you get what I mean.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

I suspect at the very least it stops some promising young talents from progressing knowing that they will be faced with a choice of doing it or not succeeding. It wouldn't bother me personally, I'd be first in the queue for some Belgian Mix!

With all due respect you, by your own admission, have only been watching this sport for a couple of years. You have also recently listed the cycling books you have read, almost all of which are about doping.

At this stage you knowledge of cycling is 90% doping. And not even doping today, doping circa 2004. Those who us who have been around longer can recognise that the sport has moved on from those days.

At the moment you are like someone who has only read one book of philosophy and thinks they have all the solutions to life.

Yup, I admit to being somewhat green! I have a healthy thirst for knowledge and have read plenty of other stuff too on the web and mags obv. Enjoy all the debate tho'

RichN95.

Richmond Racer wrote:

Back to this Kimmage movie...its going to be all about Kimmage as Hero and The Only Speaker of the Truth, isnt it...

*yawns and wanders off again*

Here's a prediction. Kimmage, if ASO give him a press pass*, will make a scene in a presser involving a Sky rider (or riders) and the whole episode will be selectively edited and put alongside the presser with Armstrong to lead the viewer to a conclusion. IT's a cheap trick used by bad documentary makers.

*If he doesn't get a pass - quite likely as he isn't employed by anyone - (or denied an exclusive interview with Sky) - it will be portrayed as the great crusader silenced by the authorities. The 'victim of his integrity'.

The person who I feel sorry for in all this is Pierre Ballester, who actually wrote LA Confidential with Walsh. Kimmage seems to be taking his credit.

LeicesterLad

Everyone slates Kimmage, including me

We are all going to watch it though

danlikesbikes

LeicesterLad wrote:

Everyone slates Kimmage, including me

We are all going to watch it though

Do think we would be a BR Pro Race discount if we all went?

iainf72

Joelsim wrote:

Kimmage is right to be suspicious. Until there is an amnesty and then lifetime bans for all riders on first offence, and the UCI cleaned out, there is going to be doping.

None of those things will stop doping.

The only thing that will stop doping is stone cold certainty you'll be caught. If there is a 95% chance you won't get caught, a life time ban or forcing the rider to listen to Coldplay for a year won't make any difference.

Richmond Racer

iainf72 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Kimmage is right to be suspicious. Until there is an amnesty and then lifetime bans for all riders on first offence, and the UCI cleaned out, there is going to be doping.

None of those things will stop doping.

The only thing that will stop doping is stone cold certainty you'll be caught. If there is a 95% chance you won't get caught, a life time ban or forcing the rider to listen to Coldplay for a year won't make any difference.

So basically Chris Martin could be the Ultimate Solution to the doping scourge?

danlikesbikes

iainf72 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Kimmage is right to be suspicious. Until there is an amnesty and then lifetime bans for all riders on first offence, and the UCI cleaned out, there is going to be doping.

None of those things will stop doping.

The only thing that will stop doping is stone cold certainty you'll be caught. If there is a 95% chance you won't get caught, a life time ban or forcing the rider to listen to Coldplay for a year won't make any difference.

I don't know the way see it is its a balance thing. If I rider wants to cheat whats the incentive to not a 2 year ban and knowing that you don't have to give anyone up & then just get resigned and able to carry on. I would have thought that a tougher stance in sentencing such as a lifetime ban would make the risk of getting caught and found out that much less attractive to riders knowing that they could never come back.

No_Ta_Doctor

Danlikesbikes wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Kimmage is right to be suspicious. Until there is an amnesty and then lifetime bans for all riders on first offence, and the UCI cleaned out, there is going to be doping.

None of those things will stop doping.

The only thing that will stop doping is stone cold certainty you'll be caught. If there is a 95% chance you won't get caught, a life time ban or forcing the rider to listen to Coldplay for a year won't make any difference.

I don't know the way see it is its a balance thing. If I rider wants to cheat whats the incentive to not a 2 year ban and knowing that you don't have to give anyone up & then just get resigned and able to carry on. I would have thought that a tougher stance in sentencing such as a lifetime ban would make the risk of getting caught and found out that much less attractive to riders knowing that they could never come back.

The deterrent for driving like a maniac is that you risk killing yourself, your family/friends and some innocent passers by. Doesn't stop myriads of idiots driving like lunatics though.

danlikesbikes

No tA Doctor wrote:

Danlikesbikes wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Kimmage is right to be suspicious. Until there is an amnesty and then lifetime bans for all riders on first offence, and the UCI cleaned out, there is going to be doping.

None of those things will stop doping.

The only thing that will stop doping is stone cold certainty you'll be caught. If there is a 95% chance you won't get caught, a life time ban or forcing the rider to listen to Coldplay for a year won't make any difference.

I don't know the way see it is its a balance thing. If I rider wants to cheat whats the incentive to not a 2 year ban and knowing that you don't have to give anyone up & then just get resigned and able to carry on. I would have thought that a tougher stance in sentencing such as a lifetime ban would make the risk of getting caught and found out that much less attractive to riders knowing that they could never come back.

The deterrent for driving like a maniac is that you risk killing yourself, your family/friends and some innocent passers by. Doesn't stop myriads of idiots driving like lunatics though.

No the deterrent for driving like a maniac is that you get 3 -6 points if caught and fine which is why people consider the risk an acceptable one as the sentence can be rather 'light'. However if the risk was that you loose your licence for the rest of your life then then in considering if its worth taking the risk it becomes a harder choice.

If you bought in such a ban to cycling I think you would see a lot less people taking the drugs as most people consider them safer these days than perhaps 10 years ago with the EPO issues at higher doses. However now in cycling if you take such drugs your out for 2 years, probably with plenty of cash in the bank so its no big distress & your likely to get a contract as soon as you come out of your ban and your back in the game.

Until we kick out these cheaters & social acceptability element that well just sit out your ban & your welcomed back with open arms I don't think that that our current ban system really provides any disincentive for riders to take drugs.

joelsim

Danlikesbikes wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Danlikesbikes wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Kimmage is right to be suspicious. Until there is an amnesty and then lifetime bans for all riders on first offence, and the UCI cleaned out, there is going to be doping.

None of those things will stop doping.

The only thing that will stop doping is stone cold certainty you'll be caught. If there is a 95% chance you won't get caught, a life time ban or forcing the rider to listen to Coldplay for a year won't make any difference.

I don't know the way see it is its a balance thing. If I rider wants to cheat whats the incentive to not a 2 year ban and knowing that you don't have to give anyone up & then just get resigned and able to carry on. I would have thought that a tougher stance in sentencing such as a lifetime ban would make the risk of getting caught and found out that much less attractive to riders knowing that they could never come back.

The deterrent for driving like a maniac is that you risk killing yourself, your family/friends and some innocent passers by. Doesn't stop myriads of idiots driving like lunatics though.

No the deterrent for driving like a maniac is that you get 3 -6 points if caught and fine which is why people consider the risk an acceptable one as the sentence can be rather 'light'. However if the risk was that you loose your licence for the rest of your life then then in considering if its worth taking the risk it becomes a harder choice.

If you bought in such a ban to cycling I think you would see a lot less people taking the drugs as most people consider them safer these days than perhaps 10 years ago with the EPO issues at higher doses. However now in cycling if you take such drugs your out for 2 years, probably with plenty of cash in the bank so its no big distress & your likely to get a contract as soon as you come out of your ban and your back in the game.

Until we kick out these cheaters & social acceptability element that well just sit out your ban & your welcomed back with open arms I don't think that that our current ban system really provides any disincentive for riders to take drugs.

None at all. Back within a few months. Not only that, no bad feeling from within the peloton or the authorities.

If their career depended on it, there would be less doping. Guaranteed. This could be a gradual thing, many of the oldies may continue risking it as they have already done well from the sport, the youngsters not so as they would have too much to lose.

Jez mon

I think some posters forget how long a two year ban is, as a pro cyclist you're lucky to be in the pro tour peleton for say 14 years. A two year ban is 14% of that career, if you extrapolate that time frame on to someone working between the ages of 20 and 65, it works out as a 6 and a bit year ban. Now where is the break even point for you consider doing something at work that could cost you six years salary?

A two year ban is ages, especially if you're a no name domestique.

Richmond Racer

But not if you are Valverde, for example. No effect whatsoever. Or Bertie - and do we need to get onto the subject of bloody back-dated bans?

andyp

iainf72 wrote:

None of those things will stop doping.

The only thing that will stop doping is stone cold certainty you'll be caught. If there is a 95% chance you won't get caught, a life time ban orforcing the rider to listen to Coldplay for a year won't make any difference.

That's inhumane. I'm reporting you to Amnesty right now.

danlikesbikes

Jez mon wrote:

I think some posters forget how long a two year ban is, as a pro cyclist you're lucky to be in the pro tour peloton for say 14 years. A two year ban is 14% of that career, if you extrapolate that time frame on to someone working between the ages of 20 and 65, it works out as a 6 and a bit year ban. Now where is the break even point for you consider doing something at work that could cost you six years salary?

A two year ban is ages, especially if you're a no name domestique.

I don't think that any poster can forget that a 2 year ban is a 2 year ban period & as a pro cyclist many are allowed back into the sport with open arms. Doing the maths and stats does not change the fact that you do your time and are allowed back with open arms & thats if you even do your 2 year ban (which is 2 a year ban) due to several being back dated.

Irrespective of if you are a GC/GT contender or a domestic, if you showed promise prior to your ban it is highly likely that you would pick up a contract upon your return. Therefore the 2 year ban is no disincentive to you taking the drugs and the risk you might get caught & that if you get caught and fail your drugs test (which is another matter altogether) you will do your time and be accepted back with open arms.

Jez mon

Richmond Racer wrote:

But not if you are Valverde, for example. No effect whatsoever. Or Bertie - and do we need to get onto the subject of bloody back-dated bans?

OK. I would say Valverde and Contador are separate issues from how long bans should be. In both cases, it was incompetence from the authorities.

Also this welcomed back in to the pro fold with open arms thing isn't something I'm disputing. I really don't mind it, they've done their punishment, they are free to get on with life.

danlikesbikes

Jez mon wrote:

Also this welcomed back in to the pro fold with open arms thing isn't something I'm disputing. I really don't mind it, they've done their punishment, they are free to get on with life.

Yes but 'this welcomed back thing' is in direct relation to the disincentive that such a short ban has & it would appear in your eyes to be social acceptable to be drug user in the pro field as you would welcome them back. Personally I think this is wrong when you have a number (unknown in size) of pro riders & fans who want to see a clean sport and that no matter what your "excuse" for taking drugs is will never be acceptable.

Edit: Obviously the above is my own opinion but apathy towards drug use is what got us into this mess with the whole well everyone is doing it, so its a level playing field really.

disgruntledgoat

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Also this welcomed back in to the pro fold with open arms thing isn't something I'm disputing. I really don't mind it, they've done their punishment, they are free to get on with life.

Yes but 'this welcomed back thing' is in direct relation to the disincentive that such a short ban has & it would appear in your eyes to be social acceptable to be drug user in the pro field as you would welcome them back. Personally I think this is wrong when you have a number (unknown in size) of pro riders & fans who want to see a clean sport and that no matter what your "excuse" for taking drugs is will never be acceptable.

Edit: Obviously the above is my own opinion but apathy towards drug use is what got us into this mess with the whole well everyone is doing it, so its a level playing field really.

What dissuades me from arguments like this is the following

"Nice people take drugs too"

Why shouldn't those in the peloton with friendships with those who have trangressed be happy to see them back able to earn a living?

danlikesbikes

disgruntledgoat wrote:

What dissuades me from arguments like this is the following

"Nice people take drugs too"

Why shouldn't those in the peloton with friendships with those who have trangressed be happy to see them back able to earn a living?

A good question. But at what point does he was a good bloke therefore lets see him back outweigh a professional cyclists of being cheated by another rider who opted to take drugs when they themselves & possibly the majority of the peloton did not.

I think if you asked most riders the questions separately they might say oh well so and so was a good chap let him back, where as they might say oh well so an so was a bit of an arse don't want him back.

If you take both questions at the same time their has to be a line drawn somewhere that either your willing to forgo your professionalism and accept them back or stand the line that as a professional you should not.

Richmond Racer

But its not black and white because people arent black and white, and neither are how we act in different situations.

Let's take Dave Millar as an example. I cant comment on whether he knew for definite that Barry, Hincapie and Bottle had been on the magic sauce at USPS (thought clearly if he'd had to bet his house on it, he would have) but he'd have known that CVV, TD and DZ all had been - Vaughters knew from the very start of setting up the team, same with Doug Ellis, and Millar has a stake in Slipstream.

So Millar didnt shun them, and refuse to ride with them in the same team despite the fact that he'd been done and served his ban - but they hadnt.

To be honest, if riders started giving attitude to other riders in the peloton, it could start to get really really ugly on the road as tensions escalated. This isnt a sport where tensions between teams in the heat of a race would lead to anything other than nasty consequences.

danlikesbikes

Richmond Racer wrote:

But its not black and white because people arent black and white, and neither are how we act in different situations.

Let's take Dave Millar as an example. I cant comment on whether he knew for definite that Barry, Hincapie and Bottle had been on the magic sauce at USPS (thought clearly if he'd had to bet his house on it, he would have) but he'd have known that CVV, TD and DZ all had been - Vaughters knew from the very start of setting up the team, same with Doug Ellis, and Millar has a stake in Slipstream.

So Millar didnt shun them, and refuse to ride with them in the same team despite the fact that he'd been done and served his ban - but they hadnt.

To be honest, if riders started giving attitude to other riders in the peloton, it could start to get really really ugly on the road as tensions escalated. This isnt a sport where tensions between teams in the heat of a race would lead to anything other than nasty consequences.

Yes your right life & we as individuals are not black & white which is why the rules surrounding doping need to be. Or as an individual you be asking a pro to forgive their professionalism that one should no cheat as chap A is a good bloke such as Millar or chap B is an arse so no I'd not be happy to have him back.

Hence my adding;

'
I think if you asked most riders the questions separately they might say oh well so and so was a good chap let him back, where as they might say oh well so an so was a bit of an ars* don't want him back.

If you take both questions at the same time their has to be a line drawn somewhere that either your willing to forgo your professionalism and accept them back or stand the line that as a professional you should not.'

As in doing so your simply able to stick to the line that someone was a nice chap but they broke the rules or someone was arse and they broke the rules.

I never mentioned people giving attitude to other riders they might not like, but the flip side is their acceptance which might cross your own professionalism.

Richmond Racer

Its not down to riders 'accepting' someone back in the peloton. They have no choice but to ride, even with someone like Scarponi who's rumoured to be an extremely arrogant ar&e (read Pete Kennaugh's comments on the subject of Scarponi, for example). Whats the alternative? All risk being done for breach of contract by their teams? Ditto sponsors? Unless you're hoping for a Badger-style strike? Aint gonna happen.

And fundamentally if the wrong 'uns have done the time...etc etc.

And there will never be life bans. Its considered as big issue on the human rights front. Seb Coe was quoted on the subject this morning in his capacity as BOA Chief.

disgruntledgoat

Richmond Racer wrote:

Its not down to riders 'accepting' someone back in the peloton. They have no choice but to ride, even with someone like Scarponi who's rumoured to be an extremely arrogant ar&e. Unless you're hoping for a Badger-style strike? Aint gonna happen.

And fundamentally if they've done the time...etc etc.

And there will never be life bans. Its considered as big issue on the human rights front. Seb Coe was quoted on the subject this morning in his capacity as BOA Chief.

Exactly. Professionally, I have to deal with some utter twunts I would really rather not (convinced, as I am, that they would push their mothers under a truck for a hug from the boss). But I don't have a choice. I've got bills too.

danlikesbikes

Again think you taking what I'm saying the wrong way. I never said anything about riders giving attitude or refusing to ride with other riders, or striking because they don't like them.

I agree that once someone does their time you need to accept them back, but it doesn't mean that you can have an opinion that the time served is not long enough.

"and there will never be life time bans' well am sure that Larry would love to hear that one! Only joking.

Your right that it is a big debate at the moment following the whole WADA BOA fall out & is still ongoing which I think is a good thing. However clearly a 2 year ban in cycling is currently not a sufficient disincentive for riders to stop taking drugs or we would have no body taking them in the sport

disgruntledgoat

Danlikesbikes wrote:

Again think you taking what I'm saying the wrong way. I never said anything about riders giving attitude or refusing to ride with other riders, or striking because they don't like them.

I agree that once someone does their time you need to accept them back, but it doesn't mean that you can have an opinion that the time served is not long enough.

"and there will never be life time bans' well am sure that Larry would love to hear that one! Only joking.

Your right that it is a big debate at the moment following the whole WADA BOA fall out & is still ongoing which I think is a good thing. However clearly a 2 year ban in cycling is currently not a sufficient disincentive for riders to stop taking drugs or we would have no body taking them in the sport

Of course it doesn't. But you seem to be implying that those opinions should cary more weight than that of WADA. There is no civilised justice system on earth that allows the victims of a crime to set it's punishment.

danlikesbikes

No trying to imply that can assure you. Just that am sure there are pro riders out there that live with the fact that another rider was banned for 2 years and they don't like it where as they might get on well with another rider and be willing to accept the fact that a 2 year ban was just and OK as they are an OK person.

iainf72

Richmond Racer wrote:

And there will never be life bans. Its considered as big issue on the human rights front. Seb Coe was quoted on the subject this morning in his capacity as BOA Chief.

There are life bans. 2nd offence and you're out. BOA seem to get confused about punishing someone for the same offence twice.