Home

Anyone else following Paul Kimmage on Twitter?
He is currently revealing some very 'interesting' stuff about Team Sky and making some pretty strong implications.

41 comments

Avatar
NeilG83 [299 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I do follow him, but I'm just about to unfollow him, he is starting to annoy me, although he is only repeating what he has said before. He seems to think that just because Team Sky don't do exactly what he tells them to do that it is ok to imply that they are doping.
Ok, we still haven't had a full explanation on how much Sky knew of Geert Lienders' past before they hired him, but just because Bradley Wiggins didn't want a journalist following him around whilst he was trying to win the Tour de France does not make him a drugs cheat.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9086 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

 19 ......Is a pain in the arse and very hard to follow it all

......Publish it all in one story, because reading posts backwards.......

He needs to learn to use something like this http://notepub.com/ .......

Avatar
Paul J [884 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

FWIW, he's implying Brailsford claims that Team Sky are transparent on doping are hollow. Not necessarily more than that.

Avatar
NeilG83 [299 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Paul J, Sky haven't been as transparent as I would like, but it often seems as if they are being demonised just because they are successful, where as Garmin are heralded as a clean and transparent team simply because Vaughters is good at PR. There is little evidence that any Sky rider has ever doped, whereas half the Garmin team has been involved in doping and apart from David Millar they aren't transparent and open about the past.
Kimmage and his followers applaud Garmin, but accuse Sky. Why?

Avatar
Some Fella [890 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

He has just claimed he is leaving twitter now anyway. Lit the blue touchpaper and retired to an unsafe distance.
Im not judging him, Brailsford or Sky any which way - just thought what he is saying is interesting and shows the complex nature of the pro peleton.
Like rats in London - it seems no matter how clean you claim to be you are never far from a doper.
Its just all a little disappointing more than anything.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9086 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Sky haven't been very transparent, but I don't think thats about doping, more about their "marginal gains".....

But if he wanted a story, he picked on the right person in my eyes, Michael Barry was US postal with certain riders. Then onto T-Mobile.....

Avatar
TheHatter [770 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I like Paul Kimmage - if the sport had more like him it would be in much better shape than it is.
He may have a bit of a chip on his shoulder but it far preferable to the media complacancy that existed in the Armstrong years.

Avatar
Simon_MacMichael [2450 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Some of the comments previously made by Brailsford and others do put this into a bit of context.

http://road.cc/content/news/61543-dave-brailsford-defends-team-skys-empl...

Avatar
Sam1 [220 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

In terms of the present, Kimmage ONLY talks about Sky. Whilst all around we have Schleck failing a dope test during the Tour - no word from Kimmage about that. Di Gregorio still suspended by Cofidis - nada. Contador and Valverde both riding and winning immediately on their returns from bans - nothing to say, Paul? How about Gabrovski testing positive 2 months ago - no view on this? And now Vino taking up a management position at Astana, and Ekimov, ex USPS team mate of Armstrong's,replacing Holczer at Katusha, the same team where Galimzyanov tested positive a few months ago - no views on this, Paul?

Doesnt it strike you as odd that the ONLY team Kimmage wants to constantly question and infer are up to something, is Sky? I have read not one thing from him on any of these riders or teams concerning real, sanctioned riders and teams. If the chip on Kimmage's shoulder about Sky and Wiggins was any bigger, it would feed a host of nations. Perhaps he's upset by Wiggins saying at a press conference during the Tour that he certainly woulnt want Kimmage living with him night and day - cant say I blame him!

Avatar
Sam1 [220 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
Some Fella wrote:

He has just claimed he is leaving twitter now anyway. Lit the blue touchpaper and retired to an unsafe distance.
Im not judging him, Brailsford or Sky any which way - just thought what he is saying is interesting and shows the complex nature of the pro peleton.
Like rats in London - it seems no matter how clean you claim to be you are never far from a doper.
Its just all a little disappointing more than anything.

Some Fella: its a fact of life at this stage in pro cycling. Forget about the riders alone for a moment: the sport's going to have to go through a couple of generations before it has riders who are riding clean now, stepping up to become DS's. Its only at that point when you'll have DSs, as well as experienced doctors employed by teams, with no legacy attached to them through teams they were with in the 90s and 00s. Look around at the teams in the ProTour and their DSs - there can be very few DSs who arent on record with sanctions, or who rode alongside dopers (and so are getting tagged by implication).

Avatar
notfastenough [3685 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

@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).

Avatar
NeilG83 [299 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
NeilG83 [299 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

@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?

Avatar
Some Fella [890 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

He was fired wasnt he? I think i read on Inner Ring that there are actually only three people on The Sky payroll and the rest are essentially sub contractors
http://inrng.com/2012/08/team-sky-budget-accounts/
I think Lienders was quietly dropped a couple of months ago. I cant confirm this - only to say 'i read it on the internet somewhere'.

Avatar
NeilG83 [299 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

@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.

Avatar
Gkam84 [9086 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I don't see him mentioning Yates either. Who tested positive for a substance in 89  3

Avatar
drheaton [3318 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
Gkam84 wrote:

I don't see him mentioning Yates either. Who tested positive for a substance in 89  3

That was going to be my point.

To hire people with experience cycling, sadly at the minute, means hiring people with a past connected to doping.

There are so few experienced doctors in cycling (with the specialist knowledge which is valuable at elite level) that are untainted by doping that it's probably a miracle Brailsford has managed to find any.

Likewise anyone of the generation that are now becoming DSs (Yates), Team Managers (Vaughters) or moving into any other type of management are going to be connected with doping in some way. It's inevitable given how prevalent doping was in the recent past.

Kimmage now has a pedastal from which to shout, he's availling himself of an opportunity to speak out about doping to more people than he's ever been able to reach previously. It does however seem strange that he's focusing on one team alone who seem to be on the anti-doping side of the fence rather than the raft of other teams (Cofidis, Astana, Katusha, Movistar, Saxo etc etc...) where doping has been found recently and perhaps is a large part of the intenal culture.

What's the point on bashing the teams who are anti-doping when so many are less vigilant?

Avatar
Simon E [2723 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
TheHatter wrote:

I like Paul Kimmage - if the sport had more like him it would be in much better shape than it is.
He may have a bit of a chip on his shoulder but it far preferable to the media complacancy that existed in the Armstrong years.

That's how I see it. He is passionate and may not be exactly right every time but, like Greg LeMond, he knows more about this sh*t than most of us.

PK can't hold every team to account via Twitter. He wrote favourably of Garmin one year after spending some time with the team. While Vaughters might be "good at PR" he also appears to me to be trying very hard to be honest and open about his team.

Sometimes I think the suspicion about Sky is because people don't like Dave Brailsford's way of saying things. Wiggins' mid-Tour outburst didn't help. I can't imagine why he thought that slagging anonymous tweeters and swearing profusely during a press conference while wearing the maillot jaune in the biggest race on the planet was a good idea. I thought it was disrespectful and out of order. And yes, I'd say that to his face. When riders get defensive it arouses suspicion.

As for Sean Yates, I certainly don't want to give ex-dopers and easy ride but a positive in 1989 is not the same as taking on a dodgy medic who worked with the Chicken and Dekker shortly before leaving in 2009.

Avatar
Swami Dave [53 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
Paul J [884 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
Sam1 [220 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

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.

ALL teams are 'no-needles' since May 2011 when the UCI introduced the follwing policy
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-approves-no-needle-policy

Avatar
Sam1 [220 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Paul J wrote: 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

ALL teams are 'no-needles' since spring 2011 when the UCI introduced the policy in time for last year's Giro

Re The Hatter's comment re Wiggins outburst during the Tour:
He himself said the next day that he was sorry about the language - but not about what he said. It's very easy to sit back and be outraged but there had been whispers and innuendo all year, as soon as Sky started dominating the stage racesm with it peaking at the Dauphine. All the 'UK Postal' - and everyone knew what that nickname was supposed to be inferring - doping. If you're in Wiggins shoes, that must have been very difficult to take, for yourself and your team mates. Add to that the trolls on Twitter - you could see some of the stuff he was being sent and I would have hated it myself. What was important was that after the outburst, he gave it more thought, spoke to some people who could give him a different perspective, and handled the whole thing much better through the remainder of the Tour. Think about this: how did Evans handle doping questions in 2011? Totally wishy-washy. And Contador and Valverde et all wont answer questions. So which reaction would you prefer?

Avatar
Simon E [2723 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
Sam1 wrote:

Think about this: how did Evans handle doping questions in 2011? Totally wishy-washy. And Contador and Valverde et all wont answer questions. So which reaction would you prefer?

I'd prefer Wiggins to avoid the offensive, useless, reactionary shit he came out with in that press conference. If you don't like trolls on Twitter then DON'T USE IT. Every phone or computer has an 'off' button.

He's a highly paid (un)professional athlete and team leader with a responsibility to his team and sponsors; doping is far from a new subject; he's wearing the yellow jersey at the Tour. Is that behaviour appropriate? Absolutely not. I hope Brailsford gave him a rocket up the arse.

The other names? Lying cheats, mostly. I'm not sure about Cadel, he seems to care more about his dog than being honest about whether he dopes/doped.

Avatar
Sam1 [220 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

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

Avatar
Simon E [2723 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes
Sam1 wrote:

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

I am (though I don't do hero worship), which is why it is all the more disappointing. Do you not expect people at the top of their sport/business/profession to act a little more appropriately?

Avatar
Paul J [884 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

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

Avatar
Some Fella [890 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

Here you go - i 'read it on the internet somewhere'

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/leinders-not-renewed-after-team-sky-dopi...

Avatar
PaulVWatts [111 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

I think what Kimmage, myself and others are waiting for is the findings of the investigation that is mentioned in the article you refer to. Not just the result. Team Sky seems to talk a good fight on anti-doping but not be willing to say how/why they messed up by hiring a known doping scandal involved doctor. Kimmage's comment was made before Sky made the announcement in the article so may have forced Brailsford to actually put up or shut up.

Avatar
Sam1 [220 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

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.

Avatar
bashthebox [751 posts] 3 years ago
0 likes

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.

Pages