Is Paul Kimmage calling out Froome and Sky here

[tigger]

Kimmage has done some great work to raise awareness and expose doping in cycling. However, he's now turned into an aggressive fanatic who is incapable of taking a rational, objective view on performance. The Alex Jones of cycling! I couldn't be less interested in anything he has to say...

 

[PK99]

 

[T.M.H.N.E.T]

Lancey boys out of season training or Froome wearing red. What's the comparison meant to be?

 

[Paul99]

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

You have posted this before and I don't see how it can be relevant? If the UCI decided to put energy gels or bananas or old spice aftershave on the banned substances list next year does it make the previous years users of these substances dirty cheats? If it isn't banned yet it can't be cheating by using it can it?

Of course if you are referring to some newly created, top secret synthetic performance enhancer then I agree with your statement.

 

[Herzog]

Lancey boys out of season training or Froome wearing red. What's the comparison meant to be?

Before and after photos of the 30 bananas a day diet...

 

[Mr Haematocrit]

You have posted this before and I don't see how it can be relevant? If the UCI decided to put energy gels or bananas or old spice aftershave on the banned substances list next year does it make the previous years users of these substances dirty cheats? If it isn't banned yet it can't be cheating by using it can it?

Of course if you are referring to some newly created, top secret synthetic performance enhancer then I agree with your statement.

It is mean't to state my belief that Sky comply with the rules as they currently stand, but to suggest also that I personally believe they have found gains from something not yet banned. They act holier and more righteous regarding accusations of doping than any other team bar USPS.
Yet they have had riders like Michael Barry and medical staff like Geert Linders, along with people like Paul Yates who had links to Armstrong and the legendary 'motorman' of which there are pictures of him with his arm round him.

Sky have a zero tolerance of doping, great, but what exactly constitutes doping to them? Is it a anti-doping rule violation? Is it grounds for suspicion? Or are they simply relying on what the rider/member of staff tells them.

 

[Hont]

Sean Yates.

 

[jdtate101]

I hate it when people post climb times as proof of doping. Climbs are totally subjective and each is an individual effort that cannot be compared. For example Lance on Ventoux, he could have been going reasonably slowly (for a pro cyclist) up until the point he attacked and bridged across to Pantani, whilst the final section was fast the overall would be much slower. On the other hand Pete and Riche were going full bore from about 1/4 of the way up and then Chris attacked over the top, and he was only 25secs faster overall. The two cannot be compared as it's down to pacing, wind direction/strength, temperature etc etc etc...

In short too many variables to directly compare performances. Now TT's on the other hand I think can be considered closely matched for comparison, as it's a 100% individual effort over a set distance (even better if the conditions are the same, ie on the same day/time).....

I don't believe SKY are doping, and it was interesting to note that Mick Rodgers interviewed today said he thinks Froome has only improved 1 or 2% on last yr...not outside the realms of normal human development through training.

 

[Paulus]

Please remember that Kimmage is a journalist who has to write articles and has a book to sell, even though it has been out for years. He is still asking the same questions from years ago. He is on a personal mission.

 

[albion]

I hate it when people post climb times as proof of doping. Climbs are totally subjective and each is an individual effort that cannot be compared.

Funnily enough it was some of the silly mud that made me think Armstrong possibly innocent, even with the testimonies.


On this one there is zero so it breaks that social premise of innocence.
Thus I guess it is simply tribalism.

 

[BJH]

This really is getting stupid.

Based on past history, PK can make little jibes like this forever on and will just be able to claim that the future will see him proved correct.

He might also join in and say that Froome and Brailsford are part of he reptillians controlling the human race via the queen etc as a foment Coventry City goalkeeper keeps telling us. He uses the same argument that we just haven't seen the truth yet.

There is a vey big difference between Froome, Wiggins, Brailsford and LA. Their words are very clear and unequivocal which cannot be compared to LA with his everything but defence.

Dave Brailsford has built an incredible reputation for British cycling and I couldn't see him doing something that would put his legacy at risk in this way.

Kimmage needs to either sh1t or get off the pot on this, but at the moment he's doing a load of groans and wind but nothing solid.

 

[jdtate101]

Please remember that Kimmage is a journalist who has to write articles and has a book to sell, even though it has been out for years. He is still asking the same questions from years ago. He is on a personal mission.

Exactly right. He's in love with the sound of his own voice, and all his comment are being made to make himself 'relevant', ie worth talking to and making money. My impression of PK is that he's now a one trick pony, who can't move on from the past and is still very bitter SKY kicked him to the curb over embedding with them.

 

[festival]

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

Hit the nail on the head, that is probably the closest anyone is going to get for now!

 

[Pedrosanchezo]

That's a tricky one imo. If Sky were to be using substances or supplements which increase performance, but are not banned, then would it be an unfair advantage? Just because cycling's governing body hasn't even heard of it let alone banned it doesn't really change its effect on rider performance?

They do like to push the "marginal gains" mantra. They do seem to be looking for every "legal" edge.

For this reason one could assume Sky use enhancing formulas that are not used by the rest of the Peloton. It would though be perfectly legal and could even be in capsule form or simply mixing marmalade and jam together. Point being is that strictly speaking they will not be breaking any rules by doing so, at least not until the "legal" performance enhancer becomes illegal - if it ever did. With this perspective in mind then Sky would have done nothing wrong.

It's a question that will split opinion: If Sky discovered that adding aspirin to Kool aid gave Chris Froome a 10% increase in performance over 30 minutes should they A) not use it and B) let anyone else in on the secret??

This of course is also assuming that they are partaking in any of the above practises. Nothing but speculation just now.

 

[ufkacbln]

You have posted this before and I don't see how it can be relevant? If the UCI decided to put energy gels or bananas or old spice aftershave on the banned substances list next year does it make the previous years users of these substances dirty cheats? If it isn't banned yet it can't be cheating by using it can it?

Of course if you are referring to some newly created, top secret synthetic performance enhancer then I agree with your statement.

Therein lies another issue.....

The have been a number of cases where drugs have been abused before being banned, or a synthetic used that has he same effect, but is suitably different to avoid e ban.

If you know where to look there are drugs out here that can be used to enhance performance, but not break the rules


Take Glutaminewhich has an anabolic effect and is listed as a supplement.