Is Paul Kimmage calling out Froome and Sky here

[Beeankey]

on his twitter or just shoot stirring as he has been right in the past with Cheatstrong?

Paul Kimmage ‏@PaulKimmage 7mFroome on Ventoux? Call me Dumbo: "I saw a peanut stand, heard a rubber band, I saw a needle that winked its eye. But I think I will have.....seen everything when I see an elephant fly."

I think if Sky are doping it will be the biggest story in sporting history in Britain. They have been so anti doping but I know Kimmage has a good nose for smelling bullshit but its not that hard tbh. For example Froome won Stage 8 in a time which was only 12 seconds slower than LA did on the same leg a few years ago. Kimmage is looking at the times and drawing his conclusions based on this obviously.

Look at Contador (Doper) Valverde (Doper) Schleck (possible doper in the past) yesterday. They weren't able to sustain the pace they used to in the past and looked pretty ordinary. Quintana is incredible but he used a massive amount of energy to get away from Porte who was pacing the lead group and protecting froome is his wheel until the last 7km. It's been said that SKY are using the track training of improving the power on 25min power outputs as that where most gains can be made and that's where Froome has developed the incredible 25min peak power unlike Armstrong that was putting out that kind of power for the full hour of a big alpine climb (EPO being the secret ingredient to that gain) . Who knows about Froome and SKY only time will tell but I personally think that it's all the dopers coming off the gear and SKY's track background and scientific approach to training that has seen the shift.

 

[TheJDog]

With them getting double figure %age drag improvements from new technology, I'm not totally surprised the times are like they are.

Personally don't think SKY could be doping. I think Brailsford has publicly invested too much vocally in their being a clean team.

 

[Noodley]

Firstly, Kimmage was right re Armstrong. Secondly, he is not always right. Thirdly, he needs to speak to his mate Walsh. Fourthly, it should be "when I see an elephant flyyyyyyyyyy!" Get with it Polo.

 

[Beebo]

Personally don't think SKY could be doping. I think Brailsford has publicly invested too much vocally in their being a clean team.

I agree, SIR David Brailsford has too much to lose if his team was caught doping. He has an Olympic track and road race legacy that is second to none.
In the UK we are far harder on cheats than the US. His knighthood would be stripped and he would have no future in the sport.

 

[User269]

Kimmage & Walsh don't believe in Santa Claus either, and our lives are the worse for it.

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

I don't think Sky are using any currently banned substances

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Firstly, Kimmage was right re Armstrong. Secondly, he is not always right. Thirdly, he needs to speak to his mate Walsh. Fourthly, it should be "when I see an elephant flyyyyyyyyyy!" Get with it Polo.

Fifthly, Froome is more giraffe than elephant.

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

For example Froome won Stage 8 in a time which was only 12 seconds slower than LA did on the same leg a few years ago. Kimmage is looking at the times and drawing his conclusions based on this obviously.

You can't blame Kimmage for looking at times and asking questions IMHO. When you consider that Froome beat LA's 2005 time up Ventoux by 25 seconds during a time when LA was known to be on the juice it really makes Froomes 2013 climb an exceptionally impressive performance.

Sky are not cleaner than clean, as such they are not beyond question. They have had riders retire which has been implicated in previous doping scandals and associations with questionable members of staff which they later let go.
Encouraging your staff to lie and sign a bit of paper if they want to keep their job does not solve the problems of the past.

Ultimately the UCI have done very little to change things, what action have they taken since the USADA report? - What makes you think they have changed dramatically?
The financial rewards are the same, why is another big team or top rider not capable of telling fibs?

The issue IMHO is with the UCI, they are the ones which need to save the sport, the questions at this time are right and healthy

 

[byegad]

With them getting double figure %age drag improvements from new technology, I'm not totally surprised the times are like they are.

Personally don't think SKY could be doping. I think Brailsford has publicly invested too much vocally in their being a clean team.

Yes they've well and truly nailed their colours to the mast on dope that IF they are telling lies they are going to crash and burn. However a certain Mr L was equally vociferous about drugs and we now know he was doping.

My guess is they are clean. Only time will tell.

 

[albion]

The problem with Kimmel logic is that there is always the next in line.
I almost quite got the impression that those who had spoken out probably got hounded from both sides.

Stage times surely depend on wind factors and on who does the donkey work.
Froome was quite obviously far stronger than Wiggins last year so this year not doing all that donkey work he wins easy.
I bet he did less work than Quintana in that winning stage.

 

[rich p]

Listen, Kimmage has been dubious of Sky and Wiggins for years now. This is nothing new. Since there's not a shred of evidence, unlike in the Armstrong campaign, you pays your money and takes your choice. I'm not sure personally we need any more hot air on this one but feel free to carry on!
http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/paul-kimmage-suspicious-of-sky.120802/

 

[Herzog]

I don't think Sky are using any currently banned substances

Which leaves a lot of wiggle room...

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

Which leaves a lot of wiggle room...

For me and Sky

 

[dellzeqq]

Kimmage has turned in to a sad old geezer with nothing to say other than 'I'm not happy'.

I'm more worried about Froome paying his tax. And the thought that he represents the new paradigm - six foot one, eleven stone, legs like sticks. Cuddles, Nibbles, Valverde and company carry no fat, but they have body types that are something like the normal.

 

[oldroadman]

Kimmage has turned in to a sad old geezer with nothing to say other than 'I'm not happy'.

I'm more worried about Froome paying his tax. And the thought that he represents the new paradigm - six foot one, eleven stone, legs like sticks. Cuddles, Nibbles, Valverde and company carry no fat, but they have body types that are something like the normal.

They may appear to be "close to normal" but virtually nobody in the pro peloton has what you migt call "normal" body shape, except possibly one or two of the bigger sprinters. It is all about power/weigt, and carrying too much body fat simply means you won't climb well. By which I am not referring to specialist climbers, but the majority, who put into any high level amateur race would smash the mojority uphill just going at their normal speed. A professional athlete by definition is in the area of genetic exception, and in cycling terms a GC rider is thin, light, and powerful. As are virtually all the other less gifted riders who work away for the "heads". There is no point in comparing "normal" with "exceptional", two different types. Evens, Nibali, Valverde are all thin and if you ever saw them with no kit on, you would see exactly why they are classy winners. Less than 3% body fat is actually very bad, but there are some riders who hover between 5-9%, whichst the absolute top climbers may be 3-5%. People with "normal" bodies would think they were thin at 15%!!