[SlowSPDRider]

I listened to the Irish Times Second Captains podcast that had an interview with Paul Kimmage about the tour and about David Walshs Sunday Times paean to Chris Froome.

To me it sounds like Kimmage is very very bitter and goes beyond questioning performance to totally slating both the rider and Walsh. Now my point here is, can the sport ever move on if folk like Kimmage are asking for data to be published, for a largely uneducated audience to go, oooh look at the power output there or performance improvement, they must be doping?

Brailsfords idea of submitting the whole shooting match to WADA would be the way forward I think.

Cycling is the most tested sport at the moment (but also has the most high profile notable dopers) yet golf, American Football, football and other sports appear to get a reasonably free ride from this type of scrutiny.

By all means keep an open mind and don’t believe the hype but Kimmages unrelenting negativity (largely as a result of how the sport treated him (appallingly)) does not move this forward.

Thoughts?

Topic

[FMOAB]

Unfortunately Kimmage seems
Unfortunately Kimmage seems to have become embittered by his experiences and the more embittered he is, the less likely it is that any team will want to engage in any real depth with him, never mind have him embedded in their ranks.

[NeilG83]

I agree that it’s strange
I agree that it’s strange that Froome didn’t at least contact Bike Pure to say he no longer wanted to be associated with them.
However, it seems as if Bike Pure have singled out Chris Froome. They don’t seem to be demanding any of their other riders publish their data. It actually looks like they don’t stay in contact with many of their “role models” as most of them are listed as riding for the wrong team, or have retired or are dead (Burry Stander & Xavi Tondo). I’m not sure why a rider needs to wear a blue wristband given out by a badly run organisation to prove they are clean. Rui Costa wears one and he’s served a doping suspension.

As for Kimmage unfortunately any good points that he makes get lost in his bitter, obsessive ranting. The only people that seem to be listening these days are the internet forum and twitter trolls, which is a shame because cycling needs good journalists that ask tough questions and write about difficult subjects.

Also, the comparison of Armstrong’s cancer and Froome’s bilharzia is stupid. He hated Armstrong for being “Cancer Jesus” but finds it suspicious that Froome kept it quiet.

I have no idea if Froome is doping or not; and given the sport’s past and Froome’s rapid rise I can understand fans scepticism, but I wish someone would find some meaningful evidence or just keep quiet. Because cynicism and hatred being direct towards Froome and Sky really annoys me. This fueled by people like Kimmage and Vayer who make accusations without proof leading to acts of violence against Sky riders, staff and supporters on Alpe d’huez. As described by David Walsh & a witness here: http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12932966&start=0
I stopped following football due to the lack of morals shown in the game and the nastiness between supporters of rival teams. It seems cycling may go the same way.

[SlowSPDRider]

PJ McNally:
The bike pure one
PJ McNally:

The bike pure one is an interesting one. I was wondering whether this is a Team Sky position and that MPCC membership is enough (ie the rider does not own the data, the team does….?).

Sky have agreed to share the power data in line with the (biological with WADA? I assume thats a step in the right direction, as one does not make sense without the other, also using WADA as the honest broker in this prevents the issue of sensitive information being out there for competitors. (Ie their competitive advantage).No other sport requires this and cycling should not as long as their is an honest broker involved (ie not the UCI).

Agree its strange that Froome opted not to get in touch with them. And would hope there is a reasonable explanation for it.

Paul J:

Kimmages reference to Froomes bilharzia (sp?) was a bit out of line IMHO. He is entitled to a private life and part of that is being ill. Also for me, he starts from a premise that he wants to prove doping as opposed to proving a negative (which is a far harder thing to do). I think you can achieve the level of skepticism required without presuming doping.

[PJ McNally]

Thanks for the podcast, not
Thanks for the podcast, not heard it before – listening now.

I totally want to believe in Chris Froome. I’ve not seen anything that makes me think “definitely doping”, and I’m going to trust him, otherwise, why bother watching?

One thing that did worry me though –

if you type 4 words into google :

bike pure chris froome

Then you immediately find that, like many other riders, he signed up to bike pure’s drive for transparency in cycling. years ago. But now, seems to have forgotten all about it:

http://bikepure.org/2013/06/transparency-grand-tour-contenders/

Ok, if he and Sky have decided they can’t share power data as it’s too sensitive, would allow other teams to target races where he’s not peaking etc, fine – but he didn’t even speak to bike pure when they tried to get in touch.

Why not at least return their calls, emails and texts?

[Paul J]

Where does he slate the
Where does he slate the rider? Can you quote which comments of his you had issues with? I thought the questions he raised are all quite fair. At least, I would prefer to live in a world where such questions may be asked, than not – cause look where that got us the last time…

[notfastenough]

I’d pretty much go with what
I’d pretty much go with what you’ve said above. I don’t think PK should crawl into a hole or anything, but his bad experience (and he was treated badly) has skewed his view to the point that the sport can’t move on.

You can see why a team might not like him, but if they distance themselves from him (Team Sky), that suddenly means they are up to something?

You get the feeling that once he’s set his sights on proving something, nothing’s going to be sufficient to prove him wrong, UNLESS the target provides absolutely everything he asks for. In the case of an elite professional sports team, they’ve got better things to do than simply bend over and let a journalist call the shots.

I think his energies would be far better spent casting a wider eye over the peloton, there are far more suspicious things going on elsewhere. That’s before you even get to looking at other sports.

[Author]

Replies