Login to VeloClub|Not a member?  Sign up now.
August 21, 2017
August 20, 2017
August 19, 2017
August 18, 2017
  • CyclingCraze

    Nice interview.
    Wiggins, like Indurain, Riis, Armstrong and Froome (and others) ride for years at one level then step way up to the top.
    I always ask: How is this possible? The reasons and stories they give are never believable, as much as I would like them to be.
    I still love this sport.

    • David9482

      Totally agreed, the stories are never completely believable, and to be honest, no one should ever believe that these top GC riders get to the top on bread and water. That would be foolish.

      At the same time, just like Indurain, Merckx, et al. won the TdF Yellow Jersey before them, Lance, Froome, Wiggins, Landis, have won their jerseys too. Each winner has an asterisk beside their name because any logical person would reasonably conclude that they are using (at the very least) unethical methods to win. But the fact remains, they were given the final yellow jersey in Paris. Therefore, they won the race. Each of these athletes said they “prepared” for the race, and that means more than just a lot of working out! It always has, and for the foreseeable future, “prepare” still means that chemicals and pharmaceutical products are entering their bodies.

      • Maximus

        Can you help me? I’m not sure which riders don’t have asterisks in the list in your head.

        Or are you saying all riders have asterisks, once they win?

        • David9482

          Well, all the names I mentioned have asterisks (at the very least) as follows:
          – Merckx – failed doping tests for amphetamines (multiple times)
          – Big Mig – worked with a doctor named Dr. Francesco Conconi, who ahem, well, you know… (I hope you know – but he was a colleague of Dr. Ferrari)
          – Lance – obvious
          – Floyd – obvious
          – Wiggins – obvious
          – Froome – I hate to say it, but I’m skeptical about his jump, so this is a very little asterisk, but it still has an asterisk

          Now, continue to the list of TdF winners and you’d be able to connect most of these doctors to either a) teams that are now known to have doped, or b) other doping issues throughout their careers, or c) later admitting to doping use, etc. Therefore most winners have an asterisk.

          • Peter Treloar

            There is also the late Laurent Fignon’s remarks in his fantastic autobiography about his ‘race preparation’ which would lead to a further asterisk of a tour winner.
            ” We didn’t feel like we were cheating: each of us settled matters with his own conscience. And in any case, everyone did it.”

            • Michele

              One of my favourite sports book. Recommended to all.

          • Maximus

            So that’s all TdF winners then.

            What about Giro and Vuelta? I’d imagine it’d be the same. And for one week tours? Classics?

            • Sascha

              LeMond? He left PDM because they tried to get him to dope…

              • Superpilot

                He left PDM because they were shit. He is not immune from speculation due to his place of birth. He has had rapid rises and falls of form also. If others experiencing the same are in question, then he must also.

                • Sascha

                  Really… PDM shit when LeMond was there? Second in TDF 88 & climbers jersey, Win San Sebastian, Win Liege Bastogne Liege, Win Championship Zurich…I agree he shouldn’t be immune from speculation but I think you are missing some factors here?

                  My understanding is he left PDM due to being pressured to dope (blood dope) and their confidence in him diminished. Rapid rises and falls…well I gather you didn’t here about the gunshot wound? ;)

                  • Superpilot

                    Oh I know about the injury alright, he talked about it at length when I went to watch him at a speaking engagement, because I’m a fan, a few years ago. He was off the pace, had a yearish off the bike, and won the tour the first year back. What factors am I missing? I think he was clean, but he is not above speculation because of his nationality, it just seems a lot of fans and press (albeit I can only read the anglo press as I am a single language heathen) just give a free pass.

          • ZigaK

            – Cadel Evans – met with a doctor named Dr. Ferrari, who ahem, well, you know… (I hope you know – but he was a colleague of Dr. Francesco Conconi) – but only once, and not about doping

          • ummm…

            what about sastre?

        • mal

          cadel evans. The possibly only clean one

          • DaveRides

            I’m a huge fan of Cadel, but I have to concede it’s unlikely that he was 100% clean once I read through the list of teams he rode with.

            If he was relatively clean compared to some of the competition around him, that’s good enough for me.

            • David9482

              Me too. Overall, I have huge respect for him and his career. However, I am very doubtful that he never touched the sauce. He was too good against known dopers.

              However, great achievements in this sport and was the author of some pretty funny moments (even if he was the target of the jokes!)

    • David9482

      One more thing, a parliamentary hearing should not be necessary to conclude on this issue… The issue has already been decided and the facts are in, Wiggins did receive some “help” to turn from a track rider to the winner of the TdF. Let’s get over it people and move on. The UK has much bigger issues to work out! Eg. how will you deal with Brexit, good luck folks!

      • Cycling Fan

        And the UKAD found no evidence of doping…but hey if you know better than them…doesn’t mean he didn’t BUT doesn’t mean he did so perhaps you should provide these facts that ‘are in’ to UKAD so we can get this all cleared up ….bottom line is you suspect but you don’t actually know…like the rest of us :)

        “No I know, I just know these things, don’t ask me how, I don’t have any bias and I never ever confuse correlation and causation” right?! :)

        • David9482

          FACT 1 – TUE for a very very strong drug to combat allergy symptoms. Coincidentally immediately before and during the TdF that he won. That’s a very clear fact and yes it was legal, but it was DEFINITELY crossing the line of what was ethical.

        • David9482

          Clearly, I never said that Wiggins used blood doping or EPO or the things that boosted Lance and Big Mig, but I did say that Sir Bradley has an asterisk. The asterisk is his use of corticoids with this TUE, which wasn’t technically illegal, BUT was crossing the ethical line of clean. Because yes it did clear up his symptoms, but many athletes have given evidence of how much it helps them physically.

          So, the asterisk isn’t as strong as Lance Armstrong’s asterisk, but it is an asterisk nonetheless.

          • Cycling Fan

            Meh not really interested in ethical debates but I understand why others are – it’s professional sport so all teams are either pushing things to the limit or they are not doing their job properly – we have this naïeve, idealistic perception of professional sport that doesn’t fit the reality of how things actually work

            • David9482

              I’m sorry, who has a “naive, idealistic perception of professional sport, etc. etc.”? I hope you’re not lumping me into that. Didn’t you read my initial post? I think these guys who crossed the line still crossed the line first and won the race, only that their victories need to be seen for what they were – they won on the road along with varying levels of pharmaceutical help.

              You’re not interested in ethical debates yet you jumped in to respond to my posting on an ethical issue – people in glass houses! Enjoy

              • Cycling Fan

                Nope not implying you in particular and responded because I thought it would be rude not to acknowledge that you had taken the time to respond to me :)

                • David9482

                  Right, my bad for jumping to conclusions. From my desk at work, this issue brings out the competitive spirit that I don’t have on the bike these days, haha.

                  Agreed, this issue will bring to light what this sport really is like for many people…

                  • Cycling Fan

                    No worries it easy enough to do – have a good rest of your day at work

            • ummm…

              true. so lets peel back the onion. They took drugs in an effort to enhance their performance. They obfuscate. No matter what you think of the banned substance list, or the TUE system, the took the sauce.

        • ummm…

          USPS was never caught either. Leverage was used to squeeze confessions out of some. Again, USPS was never caught.

          • Cycling Fan

            That’s such a lazy argument I don’t even know where to start – if you equate every action and word spoken as being similar to USPS ergo they are doing the same as USPS then you have such a simplistic rationale you need to keep peeling away at that onion until you can make a case that isn’t as flawed as what you have presented. Heads up I likely won’t respond if this is the best argument you can make and you decide to reframe it :)

            • ummm…

              is it a lazy argument? tell me why the fact that USPS was never caught isn’t relevant.

            • ummm…

              did i say same thing? cmon dude. lets get off to the right foot. lets not let arguments with other comments get us into a pissing fight. state your thesis. and we go from there. im more than happy to hash it out and give you plenty of respect. im sure we agree on many things

              • Cycling Fan

                Fair call, ok then – because UKAD found no evidence of a violation does that mean no violation? No of course it doesn’t it means there’s a lack of evidence. What it does mean is that anyone who comments in here is less qualified (can’t say that as an absolute but with a significantly high degree of probability) to make a judgement than UKAD which is what my original comment was addressing, rather snarkily ;) put up the extra evidence or shut up – with regards to US Postal yes they were never caught by anti doping (putting aside q’s over that LA test) and it can be used as a comparison to Sky in that context but it’s a very very weak signal and will also apply to any team not cheating that also tests negative – any time I see USPS raised in these discussions it kinda makes me cringe tbh as it’s usually followed by incredibly simplistic correlation

                • ummm…

                  ok, but all ive said was that USPS was never caught, and referencing any antidoping agency in the context of our knowledge of how pro sport operates is not at all conclusive in establishing innocence. Anti doping is always behind the cutting edge, it has its own conflicts of interest in the same way the rating agencies have towards complex financial products. Not to say that anti doping agencies (and ratings agencies) arent terribly useful. they are.

                  i think its a much harder job to convince people that in order to cast doubt on cyclists one must have the proverbial smoking gun, instead of seeing the same smoke that has come to be fire in this sport and others going all the way back until the original olympics (hyperbole), but at least the last 100 years. The burden of proof is now on the athletes for all intents and purposes, and that is because the realities of professional sport (and increasingly amateur sport) beg us not to wait for the obvious to be displayed. I’m compelled to live within the bounds of reality – and while that reality has plenty of room for clean sport and clean SKY, I also cant turn away from history.

                  im still not even sure what your argument is, and im far too lazy to review our comments back and forth thus far. lol.

    • Andrew

      Lance always maintained that riding at a higher cadence was his key…. I tried to pedal like a monkey on the good gear and never saw anything but sweat

      • David9482

        Froome pedals like a monkey too… in fact he’s won many few races by monkey pedalling

    • badhombrebigdo

      Wasn’t Indurain always pegged as a great rider? Wasn’t he always able to hang on in the mountains despite being waaay bigger than everyone…?? ????????????

    • GVA

      Your assertion is flawed fundamentally. Firstly, different riders peak at different age and their roles/objectives change. Secondly, none of the riders you mentioned (except Chris Froome) came from nowhere. Wiggins (as much as I don’t like him) won an Olympic bronze at 20, Armstrong won the rainbow jersey days before his 22nd birthday, Indurain won Avenir at 22 and worked as domestique for years before been given leadership and winning TDF, Riis was wining stages of Giro and TDF for years before winning his only tour.

      • ummm…

        they may have won, but winning on a track is on winning on a mountain.

      • icenicky

        I’d like to believe Wiggins but the man himself said he’d ‘never be a contender’ in a GT in his first autobiography.

  • vorbau

    Both of you, keep up the good work!

  • Ashok Captain

    Wow and yikes! +1 Vorbau.

  • Peterneater

    Only Italians and Spaniards dope. And the only English speaking dopers are Americans…right?! Only dirty Italians….

    • Chris 987654

      English speakers know about fair play and would never do anything that’s not cricket.

    • Ragtag

      chuckle :) yeah I heard this one before from another fellow reader in this very website. Except that he was serious.

    • ummm…

      exactly. everyone but the french and brits dope apparently.

    • Bex

      what???

  • aranwatson

    Love Kimmage. People like him are a gift to our sport. Courage to push ourselves honestly and fully as humans, the only victory that matters. Chapeau.

    • GVA

      I think you’ll find that Kimmage is as dishonest as they get. He is a self admitted doper, he rats out his friends, he accuses everyone (some with evidence others with hunch), he only shows judgement and no empathy. Pretty disgusting human being if you ask me!

      • pedr09

        So in other words, he knows first hand about doping, he doesn’t obey omerta and he does his job by questioning everything. Sounds like an excellent human being if you ask me!

        • GVA

          So you think people who accuse everyone with or without evidence, rat out his friends and use his position as journalist for vendettas is a good person!? Hate to be you! The worst thing is he is the same as any other doper except he wants to destroy cycling over and over again!

  • Allez Rouleur

    Yet another reminder to people – DO NOT SUPPORT SKRATCH LABS! Every penny you give them is giving the dirtbag Lim more money! Don’t help a guy who is wrapped up in the dirtiness of pro doping to balloon his bank account.

    • Valiant Abello

      Its the only drink that keeps me from cramping. What else can you suggest?
      I have tried Accelerade (too chalky),Nuun (cramps)
      Is Tailwind any good?

      • Tivster

        Try tonic water (seriously!)

      • Allez Rouleur

        Sorry, I can’t help with other recommendations. I ride on water, homemade gel, and bananas. But, my simple suggestion was that you don’t support a company founded by, and increasing the bank account of, a known collaborator of dopers, liars, and cheaters. I don’t think enough folks realize where their money is going when they buy that guy’s products. It’s a shame and I’m happy to try and spread the word to boycott that brand.

      • ummm…

        DOPER!

  • Kimmage redeemed…again. Meanwhile David Walsh seems to be a guy against cheaters unless they’re British? I always thought SKY had some real secret sauce, something that when it was finally revealed they could say, “Well, it wasn’t banned at the time” Turns out the sauce wasn’t anything new, just their PR scheme and cleverness…until it wasn’t. Hubris? Incompetence? Same as with BigTex, unless these cheats lose all the profits from their fraudulent scheming, there’s not much incentive for others to obey the rules.

    • David9482

      Big Mig too, and then Eddy as well… the recent generations didn’t invent the doping game…

      • You are correct, but they made a hell of a lot less money than the modern dope cheats.

        • David9482

          In real terms they still benefitted astronomically by doping. Big Mig still made enough that he’ll never have to work again even though the nominal value of his earnings was lower. Plus, when you factor in Lance’s potential legal expenses and “ahem” 100M expense coming up, it evens out!

        • David9482

          Sorry, that should read “it more than evens out” after you factor in Lance’s upcoming $100M expense.

          Lance might actually have to depend on the earnings from his job after retirement (the bike shop and whatever sponsorships he can dig up).

    • DaveRides

      Far from being prohibited in cycling, hubris and incompetence are celebrated at the very highest levels of the global governing body.

      That includes the current president of said global body, who played a key role in pushing the setting up of Team Sky and their inappropriately cosy relationship with British Cycling.

    • The Awakening

      Paul Kimmage is undoubtedly a maverick sports journalist, the loner to the pack, thinks independently, investigates by instinct and asks awkward questions…

      Lance Armstrong once publicly stated to Paul Kimmage, “You are not worth the chair you are sitting on!”

      That is the ‘badge of honour’, that Paul Kimmage is worth…

  • ebbe

    While I normally don’t really care for the “journalist interviewing another journalist” thing… This time the involvement of journalists is actually integral to the whole story. So this is really good stuff Shane! And I’m only half way down the full article ;-)

    Compliments to both Shane and Paul for this

    • cthenn

      CT has been on top of it. With so much smoke, some other cycling websites are finally willing to go out on a limb to write critical articles, or at least report on the dark side, but that’s why CT is a go-to site for me. CT doesn’t shy away from the ugliness in this sport.

      • Thanks @cthenn. Much of this thanks to Shane. He’s often criticised for being pessimistic about the sport, but his instincts have been spot on so far.

        • Cycling Fan

          Wade its pretty obvious this topic can’t be covered objectively by either the interviewer or interviewee wether thats conscious or un conscious bias – in the absence of seeking any balance in the argument over what could likely be Hanlon’s razor scant effort is made to do anything more than prove a narrative – lets be transparent about this because after all it would be pretty hypocritical to run around shouting for transparency and not acknowledging without any actual hard evidence that theres more than a healthy dose of correlation v causation being woven into all these narrative pieces.

          i’m aware there will always be a degree of bias but some have more than others so I question wether this is a platform to push a biased narrative or a true attempt at actual investigative journalism? I don’t need to remind you of the impact that a largely opinion piece sprinkled with facts can have on shaping the opinions of readers and the damage this can potentially do.

          P.S hope the new model is scaling well

          • The Awakening

            Cycling Fan,

            IMHO, these two following quotes, are quite excellent ‘put downs’ by yourself;

            [1] “Wade its pretty obvious this topic can’t be covered objectively by either the interviewer or interviewee wether(sic) thats(sic)
            conscious or un conscious bias”

            [2] “i’m aware there will always be a degree of bias but some have more than others so I question wether(sic) this is a platform to push a biased narrative or a true attempt at actual investigative journalism”

            However, IMHO, they are NOT as good as the ‘put down’ by Lance Armstrong, when he publicly denounced Paul Kimmage as worth less than the chair that he was sitting on…

            2009 Amgen Tour of California – Armstrong & Kimmage Skirmish

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUAO7xmNKeA

            Paul Kimmage at 2009 Amgen Tour of California

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Ai6t6R1_w

            • Cycling Fan

              Thanks, the intention is not to put down Kimmage as much as it is to shine light on all variables in the discussion because a lot (most?) of people just take things at face value when they read something (their choice and not exactly the end of the world) and I question wether this is always the most effective way to get the best context of a situation. Lance was an ass and there is no excuse to treat a person the way he did to Paul, and has done to many many others. I tried to not make it personal and perhaps I could have done better with that, make no mistake there is a shitload of confirmation bias all over the place (including from me) which i think is mainly due to the fact that largely there is no satisfactory conclusion – looks like I need to work on my spelling and grammar as well so thanks for highlighting that :)

              • The Awakening

                Cycling Fan,

                Thank you for the reply. Well worth listening to;

                David Walsh Busting Dave Brailsford On talkSPORT

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9VIMxQPSgU

                Well worth watching the following, as David Walsh explains brilliantly the background to his reasoning about asking informative questions and not going along with the feel good story, when something looks wrong;

                The undoing of Tour de France hero Lance Armstrong

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWU9CAVrFAs

                After taking time to listen to what David Walsh has said, then the article about Paul Kimmage’s own ‘instincts’, IMHO, should be viewed in the same way.

                Always remember, that Paul Kimmage is “not worth the chair he is sitting on”, according to Lance Armstrong…

                • Cycling Fan

                  End of the day these are not really investigative journalists – not Walsh, not Kimmage, not Stokes nor Rogers, Lawton etc all they are effectively doing is shining lights and forming conclusions with, at best, circumstantial evidence. Any anti doping conviction has been the result of either a) Anti doping test violation or b) rider testimony (to the best of my knowledge). It’s incredibly simplistic, and flawed, to think “oh because journalist A says and thinks x that means athlete B must be x” they may be and they may not be it still depends on having actual evidence of it. If we read Paul’s comments even he has somewhat couched his position on it as well. It’s actually just an opinion based on the same facts that everyone has and I could care less about knowing what any of them think – give me the facts because your opinion counts for jack shit imo if you can’t be objective and are trying to spin a self serving narrative and/or get attention to your media content. I am intelligent enough to reach my own conclusion. I’m now pretty much done with this, like other non U.K. people it’s not that big a deal to me and is being massively over indexed. Let’s get back to some racing and leave the soap operas to the UK tabloid press :)

                • Cycling Fan

                  And fwiw I have zero interest in attacking Kimmage I actually have empathy for the guy because I think he just needs to step away from cycling for the sake of his own mental health and people should stop dragging him back into it but I am no psychologist

                  • The Awakening

                    Cycling Fan,

                    IMHO, Paul Kimmage is on this earth for a reason and he is fulfilling his own destiny. That is part of his personality and mission statement. I don’t know how he does it, but I have admiration for him for what he does.

        • The Awakening

          Wade Wallace,

          Your website has been mentioned on the comments section of Cycling Weekly in the UK by another poster.

          I C&P a small section of this interview and I would expect more will visit your website as a consequence of this interview.

          Paul Kimmage doesn’t pull any punches…

  • TUEs4thewin

    Reading Kimmage talk about Wiggins finishing 12, 13 minutes behind climbs and that picture, you can’t help but to think about Froome. until 2012 he had shown no promise of being a world beater, yet after joining Sky he became this elite racer? I was born at night but not last night. Just like with Wiggins, you don’t just become a champ at 27 without ever showing promise before.

    • David9482

      I’ve been saying this for years. On chat forums a few years ago I was BLASTED by some fans for giving this opinion. I expect apologies from all those who questioned my opinion.

      Thanks

      • Superpilot

        It’s the internet, you’ll pass out holding your breath waiting for that apology..

    • Peter Moline

      Re: Froome, you seem to be implying that to win a Grand Tour, you have to follow a certain trajectory. I haven’t been following pro cycling long enough to know if this is true or not. Are there winners who come from (relative) nowhere, or have they all been junior world champs, or what?
      Maybe CyclingTips could do an analysis piece on the tour winners, and what their careers looked like before they won

      • Michele

        Haven’t answered your question, but you can use the other type of example: one who was ALWAYS consistent at the TdF.

        Take Jan Ullrich … his TdF results:

        96 – 2nd
        97 – 1st
        98 – 2nd
        99 – missed
        00 – 2nd
        01 – 2nd
        02 – missed
        03 – 2nd
        04 – 4th

        Fair to say we all know Jan’s background when it comes to PEDs.

        I don’t think it matters whether you’ve always been a top contender [Jan] or someone who has improved dramatically [Froome]. If you are a GC rider performing well at Grand Tours, then in this day and age, you justifiably will be seen as “suspicious”.

        • David Beckwith

          I see where you’re coming from, but surely the argument/line of logic is fallacious in the sense that someone has to win, and the clean rider who may be in position to do so is not going to throw it because then he/she automatically is labelled a cheat?

          Or, to put it differently, (and perhaps naively), is there a point where we can have trust in the winner (or in a good performance)?

          Sagan’s smashing everyone at the minute – so is he phenomenally good, or sauced to the eyeballs?

      • David9482

        This isn’t conclusive, but Froome went from his best finish at a GT of 34th at the Giro in his age 24 year to winning the 2nd at the Vuelta at 26 years old. From age 24 to age 26 is not when you normally see massive leaps in development. In fact, at age 25, Froome was disqualified for holding onto car doors at the Giro. Then, he didn’t ride another Grand Tour from May 2010 (when DQ’d for holding a team car – and during this race he rode with the autobus on climbing stages) to September 2011. Therefore, during this 16-months, WHAT THE HECK WAS FROOME DOING to develop???? He was on Team Sky the entire time, but c’mon, what was the programme?

        • Peter Moline

          Was he recovering from schistosomiasis?

          • Neuron1

            And getting numerous diagnoses that required the use of glucocorticoids. Any infectious disease expert will tell you schistosomiasis is not that difficult to treat. This is more Sky nonsense to justify Froome’s amazing leap of performance.

          • Morten Reippuert Knudsen

            just like Rominger manged to cure his alergies – at the same time as EPO chnaged cycling. I blive there was a similar story about Landis’s sudden progression towards a GT rider.

      • TUEs4thewin

        I would love to see an article like that.
        Regarding Froome, What is clear is that prior to joining Sky he had Never even won a race period, I think he had won 1 stage in his career in a very second level race. never contended a grand tour stage and then some magical training and marginal gains made him a 3 time TdF champion? I don’t buy it.
        At least some of his contemporary contenders like Quintana, Aru, Nibali, Chaves have shown the capability to climb, to win races and stages in their early 20’s.
        Froome waited till almost 28 to become a champion racer. I do not buy it.
        Please correct me if I’m wrong about anything here, but the only explanation for such dramatic performances to me is doping. Allegedly.

        • BBB

          An interesting article for sure.
          Look at the history of riders like Coppi, Anquetil, Merckx, Hinault, Fignon and LeMond. All had early success and could climb and time trial.
          The mould was broken with Indurain. He did lose weight over a couple of seasons and started winning big races in 1989 before taking over as team leader in 1991. In fact you could credit Indurain with the ‘losing weight and now I am a champion’ model. Whatever you may think of whether or not he used EPO it was clear that Indurain did lose weight over a period of time and he had the freaky physiological profile to make him a champion.
          Armstrong, Wiggins and Froome all followed after Indurain (I lost weight and now I’m a world beater). Armstrong and Wiggins were clearly top athletes (classics rider and short stage races and one of the best track riders ever respectively), but not TdF winners. Froome came completely out of left field. Each person’s story is different.
          You could add in Riis in the lost weight and now great bracket also.
          Ullrich, Contador and Quintana all mirror the early success in GT stereotype.

        • A good analysis of Froome’s results here: http://www.irishpeloton.com/2017/02/froomes-emergence-from-the-shadows/

          In summary after looking at the past statistics (from the article link above):

          “Froome did come from nothing to finish on the podium of the 2011 Vuelta. He wasn’t the first to do something like this, he won’t be the last. But given his age, the number of Grand Tours he had already ridden and the phenomenal sustained success he has achieved since then sets him apart from others.

          But is this enough to cause the scepticism and from some quarters, downright accusations, which Froome has had to endure over the last five years? As usual with all things related to Froome, or indeed Team Sky, everyone probably has their mind made up by now and no amount of numbers and tables are going to change that.”

          • TUEs4thewin

            Thanks! Enjoyable read, “As usual with all things related to Froome, or indeed Team Sky, everyone probably has their mind made up by now and no amount of numbers and tables are going to change that.”

            Unfortunately so true

          • Peter Moline

            Interesting – thanks for the link

          • Cycling Fan

            Wade could the same not be said for any rider / team results ?! And as everyone has made their mind up already I assume this correlates to this articles premise as well ;)

      • cthenn

        Nah man…Froome went from being booted out of the Giro the year prior for holding onto vehicles on a climb, finished 94th in the 2011 Tour of Poland, then exploded in the 2011 Vuelta, finishing second. Would have won if he wasn’t held back doing domestique work for Wiggins. Not normal.

        • Cycling Fan

          Holding onto a vehicle to get to the top of a climb where he had planned to withdraw anyway as that’s where the soigneur was so being ‘booted out’ made no difference he was already abandoning..just a little more context fyi

      • ebbe

        I made this some time ago. Doesn’t really prove anything conclusively, but it’s definitely interesting to see how some “champions” showed promise from the moment they joined a WT team (which of course is NOT the start of their career – quite the opposite), while others… not so much, or not at all.

        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrHHGsTXEAArDUP.jpg

    • Cycling Fan

      I’m interested in researching this age v previous results v potential – can you advise what quantitative analysis you used? do you have a shareable dataset available for me to use?

      • TUEs4thewin

        Well the article Wade shared crunches some numbers and verifiable stats that show just how rare the case of ol’ Froome is, maybe you can read that? I don’t expect someone that started watching cycling in 2012 to understand much about the sport but I think you can begin there.

        • jules

          I urge caution on these “he became a Tour contender overnight” things. they are of course fair questions and grounds for qualified suspicion, but you don’t turn from nobody into Tour contender just by doping. if it was that easy, everyone would do it.

          the reality is that it takes a dedicated, deliberate effort to re-build your body type and what you train for. and maybe some doping thrown in. but you can’t avoid the hard work. attempting to characterise it as “look! you can see the point he started doping!” is a bit simplistic for my liking.

          • TUEs4thewin

            Hey I do not think lance became a 7 time tour winner but just doping, there must be some talent there already and of course a lot of dedication that I am not disputing. But in my opinion results cannot be denied and after this saga became public and we learn more it sure is looking more and more suspicious that these two became champions only after joining this team.

            • jules

              the point about Wiggo walking up hills is that he wasn’t trying then. whether or not he was doping, he wasn’t expected to or aiming to win the Giro.

              what he did win was Olympic gold medal(s?) in the pursuit. Wiggo was no mug punter. he expressed frustration in his biography that people wrote him off as a zero-to-hero, asking how they factored Olympic gold into that. I agree with Wiggo on that point that people oversimplify their analysis, sometimes to suit their preconceptions.

              of course that was before the current revelations, which cast a different light on his record. but that evidence is different.

              • Superpilot

                Was he racing GC in that series of races Kimmage mentions, or was he stagiere or domestique for a team?

            • CyclingCraze

              No amount of training with NO doping would have made LA a GT contender.
              He doped when he won the worlds, a one day race.
              Would LA have been more than an average to good rider without dope? We’ll never know.

        • Cycling Fan

          I’ve read Cillians piece – as he has stated it’s inconclusive, it’s also a very limited dataset – no-one has been able to show progression is linear to any degree of statistical reliability and that’s the point it’s unproven that there is one – btw who has only been following cycling since 2012?

          • TUEs4thewin

            We will never agree on this. You read the piece and take away there is not enough data for a conclusive result. I see that Froome’s unprecedented success after a career void of it makes it too suspicious to be true considering no one has ever done something similar in decades of the sport being documented. Idk why I said that 2012 thing that was stoopid.

            • Cycling Fan

              Fair enough mate – I barely read the piece truth be told as it was never going to be objective and I’m way too familiar with Shane and Paul’s opinions

  • Howie

    Good to see that its now only Italian, Spanish, French, American and English riders that dope. Australians are clean as – great work boys.

    • Michele

      That’s what you got out of this piece?

      Well done.

      • Howie

        C’mon. If we Aussies can beat teams that are doping, you have to at least question it. Otherwise you sound like a blind English Sky fan.

        • Cycling Fan

          I think the point is Howie that nowhere has it been stated that CT doesn’t think Aussies can cheat that’s totally out of the context of an interview with Kimmage about the Sky drama – one could almost say your attempting to hijack the conversation

          • Howie

            My point was: They are all doing it. Why is anyone surprised?

            • Cycling Fan

              Whatever hypothesis helps you sleep at night Howie

              • Howie

                You don’t think they are?

                • Cycling Fan

                  No i don’t think “They are all doing it” and it’s a circular discussion – you think they are, i think they are not, neither of us actually really know as a fact. This discussion was started by you trying to reframe the premise of the content to a context of CT not covering the possibility of Australians doping which is a completely seperate discussion (also one I am not particularly interested in speculating on). Michele picked you up on it and now you want to ‘argue’ about wether they are all doing it or not. Personally i cant be bothered having that discussion sorry, frankly I am bored by circular speculation, i detest doping but I’m not going to degenerate into a witch hunt discussion so I’m sure you can find someone else to discuss that with. Have a great day mate.

    • Wily_Quixote

      Evans?

      he had talent from a junior, so he wasn’t a drug enhanced late bloomer, but he did have an audiece with the devil (Dr Ferrari). It could have been dietary advice from a PED consultant, I suppose.

  • johnny boy

    Maybe an Australian journalist can question Porte about his time there? Or perhaps Matt Hayman, who also spent a decade at Rabobank with the loveable Geert Leinders before continuing with him at Sky…

    • DaveRides

      Simon Gerrans did rather well at Sky during the Leinders years too.

      • If you look at Gerro’s results he had an abnormally horrible 2 seasons at Sky.

        https://www.procyclingstats.com/rider/Simon_Gerrans

        • DaveRides

          Well, apart from having such a good run at the classics that he got a marquee team leader’s contract with Greenedge out of it.

          Nothing to see here, Gerro’s such a Good Bloke™ that he’s even got a nickname. Like Wiggo. We all know that no Good Bloke™ would ever dope.

          • Michele Graham

            to support Goss, so Gerrans was the default leader when Goss didn’t perform.

      • Michele

        You got owned by Wade @DaveCyclist:disqus :)

        • Mark Wells

          Not really. Gerro rode with Sky for two years, his current Sporting Director is Matt White, he rode with Stuart O’Grady….I could go on but the (Klimmage’s) point is the Omerta still exists and I don’t see Gerro or many (any?) other riders making much of a stand.

      • Michele Graham

        Daniel Friebe from the Cycling Podcast rated Gerro as Sky’s worst ever signing & he was signed by Greenedge to support Matt Goss. Goss was the one who got the big contract which didn’t work out at all.

    • cthenn

      Porte for sure. He was touted as a big deal, never lived up to much promise his early years, then when he got to Sky, he was dropping Contador while towing Froome up mountains…highly questionable IMO.

      • Sascha

        Didn’t Porte lead the Giro while riding for Riis’s team…? Damn… ;)

      • Morten Reippuert Knudsen

        Isnt he still fraging Froome up mountains?

        ;-)

  • Michele

    Great piece. Don’t agree with everything in it, but Kimmage is a deep thinker, and he’s good at joining the dots.

    Learnt a couple of things as well … wasn’t aware of Marco showing that picture of Wiggins walking.

    Also I wasn’t aware Wiggins was a fan of Piña Coladas.

  • Jeffrey Tillack

    While not a fan of Sky at all (never have been fond of their Holier than Thou rhetoric) I feel that we shouldn’t really judge until everything’s come out in the open. Sure it looks bad (personally I couldn’t care either way) but I’m perplexed about Wiggins. He’s been so outspoken about doping over the years and so he needs to come out and say exactly what he took, when why etc. To think I did believe in him (ugh!). But his rep is getting more and more shredded every day and yet he says nothing? If he were clean wouldn’t you expect him to come out to the press and explode in expletives about it??? I know I’d be up in arms and presenting myself to every committee available to prove my innocence (with the truth). I like Kimmage but he’s adding fuel to the fire with facts unproven (thus far). Circumstantial evidence (even a lot of it) can’t convict a felon – a jury needs the facts. So although I’m no Sky lover, having worked in the court system for many years I’ll hold off (for now) in deciding either way. It looks bad, but hell, so what’s new right? Sky need to present the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It’ll be interesting to see where all this leads in the coming months. I’d expect a lot of the riders to be looking elsewhere now given all the fallout from this. A new movie entitled “(Team) Sky Fall”

    • Greg

      Good points. But circumstantial evidence alone has put people on death row. Multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence can become more than the sum of their parts and build a very strong case. In this case there are lots of pieces of circumstantial evidence relating to Kenalog that all corroborate a narrative that doesn’t look good for Sky.

      • Jeffrey Tillack

        Greg. Yes what you’ve said is true. It’s all pretty damning. As others have said, it’s quite sad rather than making me angry. I’ve got all Wiggo’s books and actually thought he was a decent bloke. I’d like to still think that but it’s not looking good. DB I couldn’t care less about. But Wiggo is a national hero who is fast fading unless he makes a stand soon. The silence is deafening…

      • ebbe

        Indeed! And add to that the fact that they’ve verifiably lied when asked quite simple questions. Obviously these quite silly lies were caught out, but then they just tried new lies.

        Just one such example (of several)
        Q “What was in the jiffy bag for Wiggins?”
        A “It wasn’t for Wiggins, it was for Emma Pooley”
        Q “Ehm no, she was in Spain at that moment. What was in the jiffy bag for Wiggins?”
        A “It was never delivered to Wiggins, because the bus has already left when Wiggins finished”
        Q “Ehm no, there’s video footage of Wiggins in the bus. What was in the jiffy bag for Wiggins?”
        A “It was Fluimicil, flown in from the UK because it isn’t available in France”
        Q “Ehm no, Fluimicil is actually easier to get in France than in the UK. What was in the jiffy bag for Wiggins?”
        A “It was a special kind of Fluimicil” etc etc etc

        At some point any last bit credibility just crumbles. Even if in the end there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation for everything, and it really was a special kind of Fluimicil, they’re already dug their own holes by lying and lying and lying for no apparent reason. Naturally, people will start wondering: If it were really that simple, why all the lies?

    • Rodrigo Diaz

      No one is getting convicted of anything. Hence, the burden to assess something is much lower, based on “what we know, what has happened before (in cycling), and what likely happened”.

      Freeman doesn’t seem to be going to jail lest he perjure himself, no matter what. But want to hear a fishy story? Do you trust an organization that does this:

      1. Shipped a mysterious package, but tried to pin it on a much more expendable rider on a female team. That wasn’t even in the country.
      2. Mysteriously is unable to produce the records that guarantee the safekeeping of the stock of pharmacological supplies.
      3. Has its top boss say “I don’t know what kenacort is”, to then flip about say “oh yea, sorry, it was for me dodgy knee”.

      And so on. It’s a farce. You can hold up deciding whether you believe Sky was playing by the rules until someone comes up with an EPO syringe with a rider’s DNA. With that burden of proof, US Postal is also “innocent until proven guilty”. If this is jail-time being decided then yeah, the burden of proof needs to be high. For cycling website banter? Much lower. Having worked in the court you surely accept that the burden of proof for a criminal case (“beyond reasonable doubt”) is different than for civil litigation (“preponderance of evidence”).

      • Jeffrey Tillack

        @Rodrigo I hear ya, and agree with what you’ve said. It’s all a bloody hopeless mess and looks very bad. DB has handled this extremely badly and made himself out to be a terrible manager with a selective memory. I was reading an article about FDJ a week or so ago and it seems like they’ve been on the bread and water for many years (how much have they won when not getting a lift behind a car lately?). What I’m saying here is, they don’t have a massive budget, don’t go on about their “racing clean” yet they seem to have no issues with anyone (that I know of anyway). None of their managers are super qualified etc yet they don’t seem to have any transparency issues? especially compared to a mega team like SKY……yes, preponderance of evidence is overwhelming I agree. No argument…..

  • BBB

    Sky have had all sorts of issues over the years…the Rabobank doctor, letting people go who had doping histories (but curiously denying some of those who left did so on account of their background), the Tramadol etc.

    What they can’t get over is that in the teeth of grand tours, two of which he went in as a favourite, they gave Wiggins a powerful corticosteroid. It may have been ‘legal’ with a TUE, but even that seems dubious. If his asthma was so bad that it required such a drug, how on earth did he win the Dauphine two years running (the second time with no difficulty at all)? What was his treatment history prior to receiving the drug in question, particularly seeing he’d been a professional athlete for a number of years prior to 2011? Why has the process been wrapped in so much mystery (which Kimmage seems to answer by suggesting the ‘package’ had the drug in question and hence it was received before the exemption)? This last question is somewhat rhetorical, but it is a PR disaster for Wiggins and Sky anyway you look at it.

  • Simon Bird

    An interesting article, and while I respect a lot of what Kimmage has done, I can’t help but feel he often comes across as having an axe to grind, and injects a lot of opinions as facts, and it does steer toward pub conversation rather than investigative journalism.
    There’s definitely something fishy going on at Sky, but it probably all falls within being “technically” legal, just not ethically in line with our expectations or the whiter than white image that has been portrayed. If that’s the case, fans definitely have a right to be angry and disappointed, but if the rules haven’t been broken, talk of revoking victories is ridiculous. To compare this to blood transfusions on the team bus, while indicative of what constitutes a scandal in today’s cleaner peloton, is a bit of a stretch.

    • cthenn

      Could not disagree more. “Today’s cleaner peloton” is a myth. You must read too many fluff pieces in the British press regarding Sky.

      If you mean “cleaner” in that guys aren’t injecting horse steroids at the dinner table, ok, but there’s still a ton of doping going on, with not-so-marginal gains.

  • echidna_sg

    Do they still behead fallen knights in the UK? *cough*

  • cthenn

    Burn it all down! Kimmage coming with the heat! Wiggins is finished, done. He may keep a few nationalistic fans in the UK who will always embrace him, just as Armstrong still has plenty of sycophants in the US. Sky should just fold now. Brailsford is the new smug thug, I mean he has almost the exact same personality as Bruyneel. But Froome is the big fish for me. So far, it appears Wiggins is the first one to go down, everyone is focusing on him, but Froome’s transformation and continued ludicrous strength is as bad as Lance. I’m a bit disappointed in Kimmage on his Froome’s comments. Seems to be quite tempered, when it’s obvious to just about everyone who knows the drill in this “sport”. I hope once Wiggins, Brailsford, and Sky are dismantled, the focus turns to Froome.

    • Neuron1

      I wonder if he is playing it close to the vest due to the libel laws in Europe and his past experience with Lance. He’s waiting for more data to pounce.

      • jules

        libel laws on continental Europe are notoriously lax. that was the reason LA Confidentiale was never published in the English language.

        libel laws in Anglo countries provide strong protections to the plaintiff. the thing about libel is that you can get away with a lot in besmirching someone’s character with insults. “I don’t trust Froome” “I think he’s rubbish” “he’s not good for the sport” are – from what I can tell – unactionable.

        but if you say Froome was present when a delivery of testosterone patches was made to Team Sky HQ, you have a big problem if that can be judged to defame him. you have to prove it and even then, factual statements judged as malicious in intent can be defamatory/libellous.

        /bush lawyer

  • jules

    great interview.

    “If they had actually presented us with a team to embrace and believe in, that would have been a triumph for them. But you don’t get to drive in an Aston Martin by doing something like that.”

    why do we offer people such magnificent incentives to cheat, then cross our fingers and hope that somehow, beyond all logic and reason, the honest participants will triumph over the cheats?

    we’ve rigged the game in favour of the cheats, then turned around and professed our love and loyalty to those who follow the rules.

    it isn’t the cheats who are the problem.

    • Greg

      True, cheating is a game theory problem. But I don’t know how you grant either social or monetary rewards to the genuine winners without also sometimes rewarding cheats. This goes well beyond just sports to finance, politics, etc. It’s a part of life that we just have to live with. I think part of the process is to learn to accept imperfection, e.g. accept that what WADA really does is regulate doping to “reasonable” levels, not eliminate it.

      • jules

        agreed. the difference is that sport is supposed to be this artificial, pure environment that is free of the cronyism and graft afflicting most other parts of life. it isn’t and that makes people angry.

        what can you do? I find the issue of doping interesting in itself. once you release yourself of the delusional expectation that sport can be contested purely, it becomes part of the drama that retains your interest in it.

      • ebbe

        One way to favour “honest winners” over “cheating winners” is to stop the “athletes need to support each other”-BS. Another is for public and journalists to stop believing athletes (and managers) on purely their blue eyes and nice words. A third is to put a halt to jongoism and contempt or reverence based on only the colours of a flag/team.

        All three are (in their own ways) just variations on the same old omerta, which protects cheaters, which in turn comes at the cost of the guy who honestly finished second. Cheaters abuse these mechanisms to silence skeptics and get away with what they’re doing. Honest winners don’t need any of that, so they’ll “float to the top” automatically.

        • Greg

          I don’t know how you stop those things. They’re all effectively forms of speech, and it’s difficult and problematic to regulate speech.

          But, on the other hand, you’re seeing some of what you describe here. 90% of forum participants aren’t buying the B.S. The journalists aren’t buying the B.S. And while in the 90’s you usually saw an entire team circle the wagons around someone, now the star rider, the consummate meat-and-potatoes rouleur (Stannard), and a bunch of other guys aren’t playing ball.

          • ebbe

            You’re right: One person certainly can’t stop the whole world from doing any of them. But everybody who wants “change” can stop themselves from doing them, and possibly help some others with doing the same. Even honest discussions with total strangers on the other side of the world via internet can help ;-)

  • Cycling Fan

    Jesus the sense of self entitlement is so overwhelming with Paul – nobody owes him a damn thing, not a phone call, not an interview – if you get it then great if not too bad, the sport doesn’t exist to satisfy his theories and biases. Get over yourself Paul.

    • Cycling Fan

      and if you don’t think theres a fair amount of confirmation bias, correlation v causation, and Krueger-Dunning effect going on here then your all puppets on a media narrative string

    • pedr09

      I don’t think he acts ‘entitled’ at all. He’s a journalist, his job is to ask questions and present stories. If people choose not to speak to him when asked, I imagine it’s because they already know what he’s going to ask and they don’t want to answer those questions. That’s their choice but they would also, know that in doing so, they look evasive. Pick your poison I guess.

      • Cycling Fan

        Sure it’s a subjective opinion I have but i can tell you it’s based on a lot more than just this one article. Paul operates at the extreme end of a spectrum and generally these people have already made their mind up anyways so it becomes pretty much pointless to talk to them if your a team/athlete and thats not necessarily to avoid tricky questions its more a case of whatever you say is likely to be twisted to fit a narrative – notice how he only weighs in on the doping topic these days?. That aside i don’t know how familiar you are with his history but you’ll be well served to read a little between the lines on what his motivations are, where they have originated from, and then ask the fundamental question “Is his analysis of this topic objective and how much of it is affected by bias” because you better believe there is a chip on his shoulder that is pretty obvious to anyone that has observed him over the years. You can start with “if i am an athlete that raced clean and I was beaten by dopers and the sport was my dream, my passion how upset (understandably and rightly so) would I be? and how would that shape my objectivity either consciously or sub consciously in the future?” In my opinion he has never moved past that experience and it shapes every analysis / commentary he makes on the topic to this day, and unfortunately for him I don’t see evidence that will ever change.

        • pedr09

          In the continuum of sports journalists, I agree, yes, Kimmage is at the ‘chip on shoulder’, ‘dog-with-a-bone’ end of it. You may successfully argue his bias or agenda but I’m glad there are are mongrels like him out there because without guys like him, cheats and liars have absolutely nothing to fear. I fully understand why he is compelled to pursue a trail when he finds it, even at great personal cost (as he’s experienced). It’s because he can’t stand liars and from the moment this team began it would seem, they gave him spin instead of honesty and transparency, and he could smell it.

          • Cycling Fan

            Sure like you I admire his tenacity but he is never going to be always right so it’s the people that blindly take his opinion on something as gospel and don’t do more due dilligence I have the issue with – bias clouds judgement it’s that simple – throw enough sh@t some will stick – anyone can do that

        • ZigaK

          As I understand he (Kimmage) can’t claim “if i am an athlete that raced clean and I was beaten by dopers and the sport was my dream, my passion”, because he doped too.

    • Superpilot

      If I was on a cycling team and Paul Kimmage called me I wouldn’t want to f**cking talk to him either, because he only seems to sniff around for the next big story. Speculation is sure to follow discussions with this man. He may be ‘fair’, but he will still speculate. You can’t blame the teams for shutting him out.

      Much as that is true, the sport needs people to dig in the dirt, and there are few ready to stick their necks out like Kimmage.

  • gentileben

    Interesting to contrast Walsh’s treatment of Lance and Postal vs. Wiggo, Froomey, and Sky. The very definition of a homer. Never did like the guy, LA had it right when he called him a “Little F ing Troll.” No respect for that dude.

  • Mark Wells

    I like Klimmage, but I don’t really buy the Pinotti ‘out of nowhere’ narrative. If you take the time to listen to The Cycling Podcasts two part piece on Wiggins, Jonathan Vaughters talks though his long time believe in and pursuit of Wiggins and how he saw him transform from track rider to grand tour contender. Vaughters always saw this potential based on his raw numbers and he details this in the podcast.

    Its really easy to cherry pick some results to support this argument. In fact, you could pretty much put this argument forward for any grand tour winner, because at some point they weren’t a grand tour winner and then they had some break through results, then they won a grand tour.

    If Brendan Canty wins a Grant Tour in 2018 it probably won’t be that surprising to the Melburn cycling community, but someone somewhere will be repeating the ‘out of nowhere’ narrative.

    http://thecyclingpodcast.com/podcast/special-no-11-part-1-full-circle-the-bradley-wiggins-story

    • Cycling Fan

      In the absence of any conclusive evidence people will take sides using confirmation bias

      • Mark Wells

        Yes, as the replies above suggest.

      • Greg

        True. But there are now a half dozen or so pieces of inconclusive evidence that all lean in one particular direction. At some point that all crystalizes into a firmer conclusion For me that point was Dr. Freeman being “sick.”

        • Cycling Fan

          Hanlons razor

          • Greg

            Occam’s razor. :)

            • Cycling Fan

              In this scenario I believe the sky situation is better explained by hanlons razor ;)

              • Cycling Fan

                Where malice = intent to cheat and stupidity = failure to back shit up and control the narrative

                But I do see how Occam’s razor could be applied as well.

    • jules

      Wiggo lost weight. a key factor in becoming a GT contender is to minimise the aggregate energy expended over the 3 week period. you do that by becoming lighter. you can be as fit as you like, over 3 weeks if you have to expend 20% more energy due to your weight than a rival, it will take its toll.

      but a question is – how did he lose that much weight? I saw Wiggo in person and he was a skeleton. not eating is one method, legal, but has its problems. steroids are another, more effective option.

    • TUEs4thewin

      Brendan Canty has won stages and been in podiums in his young career. It wouldn’t be as unexpected as this

      • Mark Wells

        Nonsense. Wiggins had won Olympic medals in 2004 and 2008 on the track and had a 4th place in the TDF in 2009. He moved to Team Sky in late 2009 and won the TDF in 2012. Vaughters was interested in Wiggins from much earlier than 2008 because he’d seen his numbers and realised he had potential.

  • David

    Great interview, nice to hear it from a man who tells it like it is: The whole Sky thing stinks. Just look at the history of cheating in pro cycling, just look at the prime “No I didn’t” example of Armstrong, and just look at how many riders still get busted even up to the present day. And pro cycling team Sky want us to believe they are pure? Why, because it’s ‘marginal gains’ that makes the difference? Brailsford needs to get his dictionary out and look up ‘marginal’…

  • Avuncular

    Thanks for the interview.

  • Bruso

    Nice interview but for me this is all bullshit. After Armstrong (the biggest scapegoat of sports history) that dropping investigation became popular between journalist. I understand and I really would like that we could have a clean sport but that doesn’t happen and will not happen I’m near future in sports. Why do you only hear this stories in cycling? The journalists of other sports don’t have the integrity to investigate their sport? Don’t love the sport as much as cycling journalists (always willing to make Doping accusations allegedly because they want the sport they love clean)? Because if you go deep in sports like Tennis, Football, Basketball, baseball, American football it will stink. What’s the difference? Money? Or because the fans don’t have the same interest in that kind of shit as cycling fans?

    To finish : I don’t support Doping in sports but the rules should be for everyone and not just for cycling.

  • ZigaK

    Can anybody tell me what ** in f**ing stands for?
    My first guess was fucking, but it can’t be because it is unmasked just in the paragraph below.
    :)

    • DaveRides

      Fracking? Some people really don’t like the energy industry these days.

      • Superpilot

        Ruins the water table you know..

  • Ben Craggs

    Aqua Blue Sport – the newest MPCC member – the team doctor is someone called Alan Farrell…

  • Douglas Macarthy

    you can see the clean guys,,,,,They don,t win

  • ThePurpleCow

    I was watching Belgian TV a couple of years ago and they were interviewing a guy who is like the Ritchie Benaud of cycling commentators, there’s nothing and nobody in cycling he does not know. They asked him “Who was the last clean Tour de France winner?”. His answer was “Greg LeMond, the first time he won.”

  • sisyphus969

    Nice article but the point is missed – that point is and always will be that doping is part of cycling, always has been and always will be. This undeniable fact is conveniently omitted b/c it detracts from the drama – which fuels interest and generates $$$ for people like Kimmage and the media in general. Cycling is a brutal sport – right up there with Boxing – in terms of the abuse the riders are subjected to. Drugs to perform, drugs to lose weight, drugs to recover, drugs to handle the other drugs you take. Is it worth it? Only the individual can answer that. But rest assured, as long as people race bikes for money, drugs will be involved.

  • Superpilot

    1) My head exploded – Allen Lim, the bastion of clean eating, was a team physician.

    2) Wiggins won legally under TUE’s. His reputation is intact under the rules of the sport. Ethics are a circular argument, just look at the underarm bowl. Might have been ‘not cricket’, but it was legal at the time. Calling emotions to the argument is irrelevant, chaingate and all that BS are in the same boat, the result stands. He asked for and was granted TUE’s. If that was inappropriate, then it was a fault of the system that granted them at the time. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

    3) Sky have really bungled their opportunity. They really should have front footed it and had their story straight. A lost laptop, false facts about female riders locations, the blurred lines between BC and Sky, Tramadol.

    For the longest time this is the team everyone was in awe of, that had marginal gains, every detail to the nth degree, fractions of a second everywhere add to whole seconds. The same team haven’t freely offered any information in a clear and concise manner about how the package delivery screw up occurred and what they needed it all for and where it all went to.

    You mean this team didn’t have a backup or cloud sync of the data that details this info, in case just such a circumstance of questioning occurred?

    All of a sudden Brailsford admits to being treated with Kena for a bung knee. For gods sake, he could have said that months ago!

    4) I wouldn’t answer if Paul Kimmage came ringing either. He is always around inflammatory stories, so I wouldn’t want to be involved with him lest he sling some mud that begins to stick. This sport and its media are so fickle and suspicious. But you can’t blame the journo’s, there has been no shortage of controversy to sell copy over the years. Sometimes it seems that all that is needed is a little speculation, and the internet can be set alight.

    5) While 4) may sound negative, those same journalists are needed to weed out the BS that has encompassed the sport for so long. So when I say above I wouldn’t answer Paul, what I am really saying is that if Paul is ringing, then you have some questions to answer, so I wouldn’t want to be in your position!

    6) It saddens me that other than major international final results, the only stories you see in mainstream media about cycling are doping or trouble with cars.

    Have a good rest of the week everyone!

  • Andy B

    The sport that ate itself

    • jules

      It’s bigger than cycling though. Most of them haven’t confronted the issue yet.

  • MrTrippytaka

    Bradley Wiggins: If you work hard, then all your dreams can come TUE.

  • GVA

    Shane and CT, appreciate your detailed and thoughtful coverage of this and other cycling topics. But is Paul Kimmage someone who is objective enough to give a forum to? He is a self admitted doper who openly accuses people (with or without evidence) and has selective memory about doping and goes after people for more personal than objective reasons (some say due to envy). Most concerning is his lack of empathy towards cycling and cyclists who are embroiled in doping. I know journalism is all about creating headlines, getting eyeballs and the best way to do it is to create stories like David vs. Goliath and make things Black and White…but something more balanced would be good.

    • pedr09

      Not speaking for Shane and CT but I want to read Kimmage’s opinions here. If you think he talks a load of rubbish and is a hack, that’s up to you, but you are appealing to the editors to only publish content that you find more agreeable under the guise that you think his credibility and professionalism is below standard. I don’t agree on any count.

      • GVA

        My point is CT and Shane generally excellent Journalism that is objective and clearly with a passion for cycling. Why give a forum to someone who is the opposite and doesn’t show any empathy for the sport. My big 3 loves in life are cycling, tennis and soccer…All guilty of doping and kimmage as a sports writer only went after cycling!

  • dirkhofman

    Fantastic interview. Probably the best I’ve read in years.

  • Funcas Work

    Great interview Shane. Paul K, getting his argument across ‘surgically’ telling it like it is. Credit to you both for doing this.

  • Funcas Work

    Oh. And great pics to go with the article …..

BACK TO TOP

Pin It on Pinterest

17 NEW ARTICLES
August 21, 2017
August 20, 2017
August 19, 2017
August 18, 2017