"Change Cycling Now"

inkyfingers

TailWindHome wrote:

Having @festinagirl on this panel is the equivalent of expecting Sepp Blatter listen to the gobshites who phone Alan Green on 606..


(that's football analogy.....don't worry if you don't get it)

I phoned in to that show once, albeit a long time ago.

I am not the sort of person you'd want trying to change cycling.

r0bh

You have to hand it to CCN - they have managed in this short time to make themselves look less competent and more self-interested than the UCI. This is quite an achievement!

Richmond Racer

Meanwhile the Kittel-Tinkoff rumble in the twittersphere jungle continues...

The off-season's certainly a bit more entertaining than usual this year

No_Ta_Doctor

To be fair they should probably just cut out the cycling bit of the season and go straight to a last man standing bare knuckle brawl for anyone that has any sort of cycling related gripe at all.

Beatmaker

No tA Doctor wrote:

To be fair they should probably just cut out the cycling bit of the season and go straight to a last man standing bare knuckle brawl for anyone that has any sort of cycling related gripe at all.

I'll sign a charter with this included.

mr_poll

I don't understand our middle class female guerilla fighter - I was under the impression she was there as a voice of the fans however just seen this:

festinagirl: @dimspace @mewmewmew13 thank you dim, well put - would never & could never hope to represent fans & wouldn't presume to

Erm well what are you doing there then?


I am not totally against this CCN - in some respects someone is trying something - but in my view they are nibbling at the edges. If you want to form a movement then give ppl a vision as to what the end is and then ppl can get on board all this put LeMond in as an interim until someone better comes forward is BS. The charter at the minute is just obvious stuff that deals with the now not the future.

dave_1

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Good to see Kimage is continuing to throw allegations about Sky all over the place.

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycli ... e?page=0,1

Not sure I'd particularly want him as part of my pressure group tbh.

My favourite bit is one of his premises for distrusting them is his belief that that skinny guys shouldnt be able to TT :roll: Funny how he didnt bring that up when Wiggo dropped so much weight that he was known as Twiggo in 09 at Garmin (the one team Kimmage says he trusts), and came 3rd in the Tour Prologue and 4th in the TT, plus 2nd in the Giro TT

He also seems to miss that Evans is actually lighter than either Wiggins or Froome.

And he also seems to think that their improvement since 2010 is solely down to Leinders (of whom we still know very little). Not because of more experience, not because of Kerrison, not because they recruited better riders (only 9 of the 2010 squad will be at Sky next year - six of which were under 25 back then). Six of the 2012 Tour team weren't even at Sky in 2010.

Excellent interview with Kimmage..cover so so much. Wonder what Kelly makes of it. Roche hates Kimmage doesn't he? I don't know if Wiggins is clean either nor Froome..I don't know. It will be a long long time till I believe the words coming out the mouth of a grand tour winner..that is for sure

No_Ta_Doctor

I thought it was largely just troublemaking. David Walsh said something similar, but couched it in terms that made it far less aggressively anti-Sky. I think I've had it with Kimmage.

nathancom

No tA Doctor wrote:

I thought it was largely just troublemaking. David Walsh said something similar, but couched it in terms that made it far less aggressively anti-Sky. I think I've had it with Kimmage.

Yes, it is just more of the same insinuation with nothing to back it up. It is just the Asylum rendered down into a few hundred words.

ddraver

Accordign to CN, the UCI IP have asked for their input...so they ve achieved something, admittedly through the one body they re trying to bring down, but something.

r0bh

nathancom wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I thought it was largely just troublemaking. David Walsh said something similar, but couched it in terms that made it far less aggressively anti-Sky. I think I've had it with Kimmage.

Yes, it is just more of the same insinuation with nothing to back it up. It is just the Asylum rendered down into a few hundred words.

Kimmage is not much more than a bitter self-parody these days, bit sad really.

Richmond Racer

r0bh wrote:

nathancom wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I thought it was largely just troublemaking. David Walsh said something similar, but couched it in terms that made it far less aggressively anti-Sky. I think I've had it with Kimmage.

Yes, it is just more of the same insinuation with nothing to back it up. It is just the Asylum rendered down into a few hundred words.

Kimmage is not much more than a bitter self-parody these days, bit sad really.

Seems that even some of the Twitter Taliban - and we know how much they loath Sky - are muttering that he should now be filtered or kept away from interviews for fear that he'll damage the CCN from a PR perspective

Nick Fitt

Richmond Racer wrote:

r0bh wrote:

nathancom wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

I thought it was largely just troublemaking. David Walsh said something similar, but couched it in terms that made it far less aggressively anti-Sky. I think I've had it with Kimmage.

Yes, it is just more of the same insinuation with nothing to back it up. It is just the Asylum rendered down into a few hundred words.

Kimmage is not much more than a bitter self-parody these days, bit sad really.

Seems that even some of the Twitter Taliban - and we know how much they loath Sky - are muttering that he should now be filtered or kept away from interviews for fear that he'll damage the CCN from a PR perspective

At a superficial level what he states makes sense, but, Sky rode a great tour, they had enough BHP in the team on the road and amazing support along the way that the other teams simply could not compete. Not the most exciting tour but they won.

Ranting about consistency in the way he does is an old argument now. The CCN guys needed to be here many years back. The UCI (McQ and Vb) will I think survive this and I dont think much will change. The UCI will draw them in to see what they have but not let them affect anything. By the time the Independent Review is completed next June, the sun will be out, tempers will have cooled and I fear it will take another big bust to nail the UCI (McQ and Vb).

Richmond Racer

Richard Moore's nailed it
http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/ ... 70,00.html

Yellow Peril

It reminds me a bit of when the Green Party became en vogue in the late 80's in British politics. they were feted by everyone and even the baddies in power (Mrs Thatcher ) started introducing green policies and having dialogues with green campaigners.

As with that the institution (the UCI) will draw in those who it feels are useful, institutionalise them meaning no-one will get booted out and not a great deal will change.

a dissenting but reasoned voice is always useful to have. This could have been Kimmage but his loss of perspective is starting to undermine all that hard fought for respect he had gained.

RichN95.

Richmond Racer wrote:

Seems that even some of the Twitter Taliban - and we know how much they loath Sky - are muttering that he should now be filtered or kept away from interviews for fear that he'll damage the CCN from a PR perspective

That Kimmage interview (the Sky bit) does a lot of damage to the CCN cause - probably more than having irrelevant figures involved. Firstly. Ashenden is saying that he, for a fee, can 'prove' that a cyclist is clean (blood doping only). But Kimmage shows how the doubters operate - they find a way of casting doubt. Does Ashenden know that 'proving' no blood manipulation just means that the doubters will just move on to HGH, Testosterone, Clen, Insulin, Genetic engineering, 'something new', etc. If you've spent many years with the 'everyone's doping' mantra, you aren't going to back down easily. Look at how the (Neil) Armstrogn doubters reacted to new photos of the Apollo 11 landing sites - 'fake, fake'. I think clean riders have accepted that there is a small faction of 'fans' who just don't want to be persuaded.

Secondly, the CCN said they couldn't get current cyclists involved (because they were scared apparently) - but if one of their more vocal members is bascially libelling the no.1 team in the sport which has an anti-doping policy which they seem to be acting on (and some of the riders will beleive is clean), then riders may think this might not be the right horse to back.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Seems that even some of the Twitter Taliban - and we know how much they loath Sky - are muttering that he should now be filtered or kept away from interviews for fear that he'll damage the CCN from a PR perspective

That Kimmage interview (the Sky bit) does a lot of damage to the CCN cause - probably more than having irrelevant figures involved. Firstly. Ashenden is saying that he, for a fee, can 'prove' that a cyclist is clean (blood doping only). But Kimmage shows how the doubters operate - they find a way of casting doubt. Does Ashenden know that 'proving' no blood manipulation just means that the doubters will just move on to HGH, Testosterone, Clen, Insulin, Genetic engineering, 'something new', etc. If you've spent many years with the 'everyone's doping' mantra, you aren't going to back down easily. Look at how the (Neil) Armstrogn doubters reacted to new photos of the Apollo 11 landing sites - 'fake, fake'. I think clean riders have accepted that there is a small faction of 'fans' who just don't want to be persuaded.

Secondly, the CCN said they couldn't get current cyclists involved (because they were scared apparently) - but if one of their more vocal members is bascially libelling the no.1 team in the sport which has an anti-doping policy which they seem to be acting on (and some of the riders will beleive is clean), then riders may think this might not be the right horse to back.

Spot on.

Vaughters is a bit stuck in the middle here. He's been going on about how cycling is cleaner now, has publicly defended Wiggins & Sky and has a vested interest in selling the line that things are, indeed, getting better. Then Wash, Ashenden and especially Kimmage pile in with "we cant trust a single one of them, it's all fecked"...

Kimmage and Waslh depserately want to nail McQuaid, and for Kimmage I think it's now his main issue.

RichN95.

No tA Doctor wrote:

Vaughters is a bit stuck in the middle here. He's been going on about how cycling is cleaner now, has publicly defended Wiggins & Sky and has a vested interest in selling the line that things are, indeed, getting better. Then Wash, Ashenden and especially Kimmage pile in with "we cant trust a single one of them, it's all fecked"...

Vaughters's involvement in this I find intriguing. I find him intriguing. I have no doubt that he is commited to clean cycling and his team are clean. But he goes beyond the point that is sensible. He runs his team as though it is a twelve step program for ex-dopers, seemingly breaking the intent if not the letter of the MPCC code to sign Dekker and maybe (as the American team) missing out the likes of Phinney and Dombrowski to prop up the career of likes of Vande Velde. He has been asked why he didn't sign Landis or Leipheimer - his team is seen by some as a hospice.

LeMond is the other one who confuses me. He was the man (with Roche) who got me hooked on cycling. He will carry much emotional support for that, even with people who disagree with him. But he's the one person on the CCN I can't see a clear angle for. Maybe it's the bikes. Maybe he's the only genuine one there.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Vaughters is a bit stuck in the middle here. He's been going on about how cycling is cleaner now, has publicly defended Wiggins & Sky and has a vested interest in selling the line that things are, indeed, getting better. Then Wash, Ashenden and especially Kimmage pile in with "we cant trust a single one of them, it's all fecked"...

Vaughters's involvement in this I find intriguing. I find him intriguing. I have no doubt that he is commited to clean cycling and his team are clean. But he goes beyond the point that is sensible. He runs his team as though it is a twelve step program for ex-dopers, seemingly breaking the intent if not the letter of the MPCC code to sign Dekker and maybe (as the American team) missing out the likes of Phinney and Dombrowski to prop up the career of likes of Vande Velde. He has been asked why he didn't sign Landis or Leipheimer - his team is seen by some as a hospice.

LeMond is the other one who confuses me. He was the man (with Roche) who got me hooked on cycling. He will carry much emotional support for that, even with people who disagree with him. But he's the one person on the CCN I can't see a clear angle for. Maybe it's the bikes. Maybe he's the only genuine one there.

Well it's partly down to the format of the CCN again, isn't it? Are they members, observers, speakers, guests, what? Is the document they put out endorsed by all, some, what? No signatures on it. Is it a manifesto, an open letter? Is Vaughters there to represent himself, his team or the AIGCP? Is he taking the statement to the next AIGCP meeting for a vote on endorsement? Nobody seems to be able to provide an answer to any of this. The inclusion of e.g. festinagirl was merely a symptom of the lack of transparency, not the problem itself.

I get the feeling they're making it up as they go along, it certainly doesn't seem well planned or executed. Perhaps a product of being in the twitter echo-chamber too long?

Nick Fitt

Richmond Racer wrote:

Richard Moore's nailed it
http://www.skysports.com/opinion/story/ ... 70,00.html

His point regards transparency is really well made. The fact Millar was in London and did not even know of its existence suggests an altogether not together agenda too

ddraver

The truth about the "none of the riders we asked would come" bit is in reality none of the cool kids that they wanted to meet would come...

...which is why that Dutch bloke did nt get an invite...

Richmond Racer

Well, Taylor Phinney who it seems may have actually been invited, just tweeted that he would have attended the CCN meeting but had to prioritise his training over travel from US to London. Further reinforcement (on top of David Millar not being approached) of Richard Moore's point that the blanket statements from both Fuller and Kimmage that riders refused because of fear of the UCI, is a lie.

Christ knows there's enough ammunition for the merry band of the CCN without having to lie in an attempt to make the UCI look even worse.

Very unimpressed.

above_the_cows

Nick Fitt wrote:

His point regards transparency is really well made. The fact Millar was in London and did not even know of its existence suggests an altogether not together agenda too

Yes this bit is really odd seeing as Vaughters was there. Did Vaughters not even mention it to Millar :roll:

Does it have anything to do with egos?

Richmond Racer

I think egos are rampant with many members of this gang (excluding Greg L)

iainf72

Sounds like our heroes are managing to interfere with the UCI independent commission, by demanding names of witnesses and offering their own.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Vaughters is a bit stuck in the middle here. He's been going on about how cycling is cleaner now, has publicly defended Wiggins & Sky and has a vested interest in selling the line that things are, indeed, getting better. Then Wash, Ashenden and especially Kimmage pile in with "we cant trust a single one of them, it's all fecked"...

Vaughters's involvement in this I find intriguing. I find him intriguing. I have no doubt that he is commited to clean cycling and his team are clean. But he goes beyond the point that is sensible. He runs his team as though it is a twelve step program for ex-dopers, seemingly breaking the intent if not the letter of the MPCC code to sign Dekker and maybe (as the American team) missing out the likes of Phinney and Dombrowski to prop up the career of likes of Vande Velde. He has been asked why he didn't sign Landis or Leipheimer - his team is seen by some as a hospice.

I've always been of the opinion that if you want to be a pro-cyclist you can't be particularly balanced. Doubley so if you get into a sport that you know is up to its neck in agressive doping.

I think this unbalance is just playing out. It's a personal redemption for him. Unfortunately for him there isn't anyone with more balance to turn around and say "mate, this is all becoming all about YOU and not cycling", since there's a plethora of people who will sit behind him and say what he's donig is great. The team is a just a way for him to reconcile his moral behaviour in the past, and he wants to do a similar thing for his friends and colleagues who he genuinely feels went through the same hardship.

It's nothing to do with cycling really. It's about him and his own personal redemption. He's behaving like a classic born-again type.

With Lemond I just think he's a) bored and b) got burned so hard by the Armstong affair that he wants and needs payback.

Richmond Racer

iainf72 wrote:

Sounds like our heroes are managing to interfere with the UCI independent commission, by demanding names of witnesses and offering their own.

'Trying to' perhaps, but I have to have a bit of faith that the panel are shrewd enough not to allow themselves to be manipulated by Robin 'Fuller' Hood and his merry men

Richmond Racer

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Vaughters is a bit stuck in the middle here. He's been going on about how cycling is cleaner now, has publicly defended Wiggins & Sky and has a vested interest in selling the line that things are, indeed, getting better. Then Wash, Ashenden and especially Kimmage pile in with "we cant trust a single one of them, it's all fecked"...

Vaughters's involvement in this I find intriguing. I find him intriguing. I have no doubt that he is commited to clean cycling and his team are clean. But he goes beyond the point that is sensible. He runs his team as though it is a twelve step program for ex-dopers, seemingly breaking the intent if not the letter of the MPCC code to sign Dekker and maybe (as the American team) missing out the likes of Phinney and Dombrowski to prop up the career of likes of Vande Velde. He has been asked why he didn't sign Landis or Leipheimer - his team is seen by some as a hospice.

I've always been of the opinion that if you want to be a pro-cyclist you can't be particularly balanced. Doubley so if you get into a sport that you know is up to its neck in agressive doping.

I think this unbalance is just playing out. It's a personal redemption for him. Unfortunately for him there isn't anyone with more balance to turn around and say "mate, this is all becoming all about YOU and not cycling", since there's a plethora of people who will sit behind him and say what he's donig is great. The team is a just a way for him to reconcile his moral behaviour in the past, and he wants to do a similar thing for his friends and colleagues who he genuinely feels went through the same hardship.

It's nothing to do with cycling really. It's about him and his own personal redemption. He's behaving like a classic born-again type.

With Lemond I just think he's a) bored and b) got burned so hard by the Armstong affair that he wants and needs payback.

Over the last 12 months I've come to distrust Vaughters modus operandii. Like Rich, I've no doubt that Garmin's a clean team.

But with Vaughters, it's 'do as I say, not as I do'.

He signed up to MPCC in 07 yet his hiring of Dekker just a few months after the end of his ban, was a clear breach of their policy over the length of time between the end of a sanction and hiring the rider. He chose to hire Dekker over keeping on a clean rider like Dan Llolyd or Roger Hammond.

His zero tolerance approach seems fluid. When questioned about MPCC's credibility in granting a provisional licence to Lampre, his defence is that all that matters is the future not the past. Well, Lampre's up to their neck in problems that dont date back years but involve current riders and staff. Scarponi's just been handed a 3 month ban, Lampre signed Pozzato FFS, and Mantova's about to break.

His use, even manipulation, of social media is very smart. His riders can win and their wins will never be questioned.


Taking DZ, CVV and TD to the Tour with their suspensions imminent, was questionable at the very least.

Richmond Racer

Fuller does zilch for the positive perception of CCN in this interview

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/ ... mie-fuller

Comes across as an angry, angsty teenager. Bike Spring indeed.

ddraver

I dunno....

I do genuinely think he's a genuine fan, he's just a fan with power! Trouble is that we re all fans, but what Frenchie would do if he had his way (roads lined with Bertie pictures, all words beginning with St to be banned from use at any cycling event) vs what say mroli would do (ban anyone who'd ever put anything stronger than diet water in their bidons) would do are completely different. Both are equally genuine though. Why is Jamie Fuller any different!

DaveK