Paul Kimmage on Twitter

He's a really hard man to like, isn't he? I appreciate that he's raised awareness of doping in cycling and helped to make it a cleaner sport, but I honestly believe there's other journos, riders and team bosses who've done far more.
David Walsh, for example, has always pressed the anti-doping message and yet he's still highly respected by all and sundry - my point being that it's not a case of 'shoot the messenger' as much as it is a case of people just not liking Paul Kimmage. I appreciate he's gone through a lot - his cycling career was effectively taken away from him, and the sport chewed him up and spat him out. It wasn't fair, at all.
But that was a long time ago, and the sport truly has changed. It's not perfect by any means, but it's much, much better... and Dave Brailsford and Sky are a part of making it better. They've made mistakes, obviously, but they've also attempted to put those right pretty swiftly - Leinders being the most obvious of those mistakes.
This interview from 2007 made me chuckle: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest/348323/the-big-interview-paul...
In which he says he really really likes Wiggo's anti-doping stance, that Millar is the Devil, and that the 2007 tour was pretty clean. He would now say the exact opposite of all those things, I suspect. My point being, I suppose, is that he often seems to launch his attacks based on emotion, hurt, and ego rather than reasoned facts. Hence his most recent twitter rant - dumped after a few times poking around Team Sky. Was it because Sky were up to bad things, or was it because Kimmage is fucking irritating to have lurking around when you're trying to train? If it was the former, I have no idea why you'd invite a man like Kimmage in in the first place.

Thanks Gkam.

Yes, that's not going to help Kimmage in any way really and USADA stops short of implicating the UCI which is probably sensible if they have no concrete evidence.

2001 Tour of Switzerland Samples
The 2001 Tour du Suisse (Tour of Switzerland) was conducted from June 19 – 28, 2001.Dr. Martial Saugy, the Director of the WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory in Lausanne,Switzerland, has confirmed to both USADA and the media that his laboratory detected a number of samples in the 2001 Tour du Suisse that were suspicious for the presence of EPO. Dr. Saugyalso told USADA that upon reporting these samples to UCI, he was told by UCI’s MedicalCommission head that at least one of these samples belonged to Mr. Armstrong, but that therewas no way Mr. Armstrong was using EPO.On May 27, 2011, Dr. Saugy told
Cycling News
that four of the urine samples taken atthe 2001 Tour de Suisse were labeled “suspect” and that a sample was considered “suspect”when it “showed between 70 and 80% of the typical EPO parameters (basic area percentage).That meant the probability of doping was high, but because such a result can also be producednaturally, it was all about excluding false positives.

Page | 145
In the early years after the EPO test was developed, the criteria to call a test positive wasconservatively set at a very high level. Under current WADA standards, a sample in the 70 to80% (basic area percentage) range can be considered positive if other criteria relating to thetesting are met.
800
Dr. Saugy led USADA to understand that, under the current positivity criteriafor EPO, the 2001 samples would have been considered “positive” rather than merely“suspicious” as had been the case in 2001.In order to evaluate whether Mr. Armstrong’s test(s) from the 2001 Tour de Suisse wasmerely “suspicious” (and therefore the probability of doping was high), or whether using thecurrent EPO positivity criteria Mr. Armstrong’s samples could definitively establish the presenceof synthetic EPO standing alone, USADA requested from UCI the test results from Mr.Armstrong’s samples from the Tour de Suisse. UCI denied that request, stating that UCI hadasked for Mr. Armstrong’s consent to provide this information to USADA, but that Mr.Armstrong had refused.
801
Mr. Armstrong’s refusal to provide consent for USADA to receivethis data is telling. Certainly, Mr. Armstrong’s refusal contains an inference that the informationcontained in the documents would not be favorable to Mr. Armstrong.In all events, it is clear from the evidence of Dr. Saugy that Mr. Armstrong’s 2001 Tour de Suisse sample(s) will strongly corroborate the overwhelming additional evidence, includingfirsthand eyewitness evidence of Mr. Armstrong’s possession and use of EPO

Quote:

FROM INRNG's Summing up

The 2001 Tour of Switzerland: The EPO test is not black and white. It is scored and riders can report suspicious levels without going over the threshold that guarantees a positive test. In the Tour of Switzerland several samples showed suspicious levels that suggested EPO use. The lab director has said the UCI told him one of these belong to Armstrong. This is not a positive test but highly suspicious. Soon after Armstrong and Bruyneel visited the UCI and donated at least $100,000. The question for me is whether the UCI rushed to investigate or hurried to bury the story?

Would do but the scribd box on that webpage is blocked for me at work. Will have to take a look tonight.

Rather than quoting it, go here and type page 149 into the Scribd toolbar and read for yourself

http://inrng.com/2012/10/usada-armstrong-report/

Oh its in there

So far I've not heard anything from the USADA reports regarding the 2001 Tour de Suisse test, has that been included in USADAs report?

Is Kimmage missing something about team sky......

Fabio Bartalucci and Morris Possoni.....

Understanding Kimmage!

He's like the marmite of cycling, more than LA.

Whilst he seems to stand for all we hate in cycling, he does so in such a fashion to benefit himself directly and has done since his first publication.

I remember his name being that of the unspoken back in Ireland more because of how he went about his business than anything he actually accused anyone of.

Ive mostly ignored his twitter feed because its so targeted. If he wants to be taken seriously he shouldve spent more time getting involved in fixing the broken issues. He left cycling with such a chip on his shoulder, almost like it owed him something....well it did in fairness, it owed him his passion, but he allowed it to beat him, not all personalities can absorb such a beating and thats what separates the men, the champions and the rest of us. I know so many young riders who couldnt absorb this lifestyle regardless of the omerta or accused doping circles, just living the life on the road, constant racing, language barriers and finances all ended many a talented riders dreams.

Thankfully, most nearly riders dont become journalists and decide to capitalise on the chip on their shoulder supposedly in the name of fans.

I don't think anyone can be above suspicion in pro cycling, in any pro sport for that matter - such is the legacy of years of doping.

Team Sky's transparency, or lack of it, must be a very difficult one for Brailsford et al to manage. I think one of the big problems is that they employ so many innovations - technical, psychological, nutritional and in training that if they were 100% open about how they won the tour, all their competitors would be given the ammo to catch up. It's the same reason why we don't see the bio passports of the riders, and why riders don't generally share their power/HR stats on Strava etc.
So with this being accepted, how do Sky prove they're not doping? Such is the legacy of people like Armstrong that the burden of proof of innocence is on the teams and riders. They're really caught between a rock and a hard place.

PaulJ: to give him fair due it was David Millar who persuaded Vaughters re a no-needles policy at the team from the outset in 07

Simon E: much though we might want our sporting heroes to be paragons of role models..i think it unrealistic. They're human just like the rest of us, with foibles and weaknesses just like the rest of us. I could understand the huge pressure on Wiggins shoulders from all the innuendo and whisperings, and so i understand his outburst tho his language was OTT. But I was more interested in how he handled himself subsequently in talking about doping and why he never would. He did so in a way in which no other maillot Jaune winner has done, so much do that even hardened cycling journos present at the Tour were lauding. So yes, I am able to look beyond that outburst, unfortunate though his language was.

Sam1: Ah, great news. Slipstream (Garmin, etc) were signed up to that policy since 2007, to their credit.

Oh dear, looks like he doesnt have a fan in you. Oh well.

I think his difference of opinion on Sky and Slipstream/Garmin is that while both teams were formed on the basis of a clean house from day 1, Sky made the rod for their own back by insisting on refusing to employ ex-dopers and have hammered this home ever since. Garmin seem to have been more realistic about it (not least because of JV's recent admission), recognising that they can learn from their and others' mistakes and have been relatively open and transparent.

Irrespective of the prickly personalities involved and consequent friction, it does seem that Sky's policy might not be as water-tight as they had hoped and they may have to face some awkward truths. I suspect Dave's role in Team GB is making this even more uncomfortable for them.

Criticising someone because they havn't tackled *every* question/problem is not fair. It's perfectly reasonable to focus on one thing at a time. That there are other questions unexamined doesn't make the question being examined any less worthwhile.

Sky are NOT being accused by doping by Kimmage (or myself). Again, this is about transparency. Kimmage has LONG argued that transparency is a big part of solving the doping problems in cycling. Vaughters at Slipstream has done more than just PR on this - he actually *fired* a team DS for referring a rider to Garcia del Moral (one of the dodgy doctors). Slipstream also are signed up to a French team protocol, Mouvement pour un cyclisme crédible, which means they're signed up to a "no needles" policy, and to not apply for TUEs for corticosteriods (riders either don't use them, or if they must, don't race). These protocols are self-enforced though, but it's at least something. Kimmage spent a little time "embedded" with them too.

As for team staff who are former riders having doped, well, Sky isn't unusual in that. Vaughters is one too. It's becoming clear that the riders generally are the smallest cogs in the machine, with the least influence over doping. It's the team owners, directors and sports officials who set the tone and who create the pressure. Truly repentant riders can be forgiven, particularly if they then do what they can to try clean up the sport.

I don't see him mentioning Yates either. Who tested positive for a substance in 89

@some fella You might be right, or he could be one of those sub-contractors. If Sky have dropped him why is Kimmage still going on about it?

My main problem with Kimmage is that now it appears he was right about Armstrong and with his case against the UCI he has gained a huge following and a hero status with lots of faceless cynics on Twitter, who will use his opinions to validate their own.

There is a comment on this article http://lovingthebike.com/pro-cycling/d-fence claiming to be from Pat McQuaid's sister in which she makes some interesting points about Kimmage.

@notfastenough the Lienders questions has been answered partly. We know why Sky hired him (seems like sound reasons to me), but why was he not fired when his past came to light and is he still working with the team?

Sam1, I agree with what you say in your 2 posts. There are a lot of suspicious things that Kimmage doesn't comment on, yet he complains that Wiggins doesn't give his views on the Lance Armstrong case.
I'm not saying we should ignore Kimmage completely, as it looks like he was probably right about Armstrong, but at least he had some evidence to back up those claims, his rants about Sky make it look like he has got a grudge.

@sam1 - good post. He expends an awful lot of tweets just to repeat the thing about sky withdrawing the embed invite. There could be various reasons for that; personality conflicts, confidentiality, personal focus, team vibe, whatever. Yet he has a reply that says "that speaks volumes doesn't it?". Does it really? Seems like good controversy to accuse the top team, but he also suggests that questions haven't been answered when they have (Leinders).