Paul Kimmage on Twitter

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.

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

Fabio Bartalucci and Morris Possoni.....

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?

Oh its in there

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/

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

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?

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.

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.