Paul Kimmage on Twitter

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

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

Paul J wrote: Mouvement pour
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?

Criticising someone because
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.

TheHatter wrote:I like Paul

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.

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.

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

Sam1, I agree with what you
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.