Wiggo's comments on drugs doubters.

[jdtate101]

This may just be Kimmage stirring again but I think he has a point http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...n-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx

Sounds like Kimmage is a bit sour after being blocked from being 'embedded' with the team. He has lost some of his exclusive access, and as such is probably bitter about it. If I were Brad I'd also not want a journalist hanging round at all hours, asking questions when I'm trying to prepare and concentrate. It's one thing being open and welcoming to journalists, but we all know unlimited access is unhealthy, the example of embedding journalists in units during the gulf war is a great example. Our troops had to spend extra caution and time protecting them instead of fighting the enemy, fearful of everything they did being portrayed in a bad light. In a few occasions of embedding, journalists gave away valuable secret info that could have been used by the enemy prior to operations being launched.

I think sky should be open up to a point. As for the issue of hiring people with a 'suspect' background. Everyone has done things in their past they are not proud of, but to deny people a second chance to prove themselves seems a bit nasty. If doping was so rife in the sport in the late 90's/ early 00's then there will be hardly anyone in a team management position who hasn't been tainted in some, even minor, way.

 

[400bhp]

FFS

The one year a Brit could win the TDF, perhaps the greatest individual sporting achievement ever by a Britain, and we get a feckin thread on doping.

 

[400bhp]

The point of my post, which I think you either missed or misinterpreted, is that questions surrounding performance at the top level of professional cycling given its history are entirely understandable.
Also that Wiggins, being intelligent and professional, ought to understand that being open and welcoming to scrutiny is helpful to the honest (such as himself).
Being offensive (literally and verbally) towards people who ask questions about doping, albeit boring and hackneyed, isn't productive.

How do you know that - it might be for him. It may motivate him/push him just that little bit extra.

When I get backed into a corner, I usually come out fighting and it has been very productive for me.

 

[Chuffy]

Sounds like Kimmage is a bit sour after being blocked from being 'embedded' with the team. He has lost some of his exclusive access, and as such is probably bitter about it. If I were Brad I'd also not want a journalist hanging round at all hours, asking questions when I'm trying to prepare and concentrate. It's one thing being open and welcoming to journalists, but we all know unlimited access is unhealthy, the example of embedding journalists in units during the gulf war is a great example. Our troops had to spend extra caution and time protecting them instead of fighting the enemy, fearful of everything they did being portrayed in a bad light. In a few occasions of embedding, journalists gave away valuable secret info that could have been used by the enemy prior to operations being launched.

I think sky should be open up to a point. As for the issue of hiring people with a 'suspect' background. Everyone has done things in their past they are not proud of, but to deny people a second chance to prove themselves seems a bit nasty. If doping was so rife in the sport in the late 90's/ early 00's then there will be hardly anyone in a team management position who hasn't been tainted in some, even minor, way.

Kimmage accused of being bitter = everyone drink!

 

[asterix]

Ta, hadn't got round to that yet. I can feel his frustration and not everyone wants to be pushed forward as a spokeman (see also: Kurt Cobain) but Brad, it's about more than just you mate...

He's yellow jersey! It's only about him.

FFS

The one year a Brit could win the TDF, perhaps the greatest individual sporting achievement ever by a Britain, and we get a feckin thread on doping.

And this. I feel your pain 400bhp.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Kimmage wants to define Sky's transparency for them. They determine their business model and their mode of operations and, inter alia, what transparency means for them, not some chippy journo surely?

 

[Silver Fox]

If Wiggo is on something, I can only assume it's medication for that strange fungus that's growing out the side of his face.

 

[Crackle]

Wheeling out Kimmage in a doping related story is like wheeling out Anne Widecombe in a debate about teenage morality, you know pretty much what he's going to say.

That said, he's been proven right many times before, even if he does come across as a chippy little arse, and he's right about Sky. They made a big thing about transparency and being clean when they started, they need to live up to that. If they need tips on how to do it properly they just need to look at Vaughters and Garmin.

Yep. There's a few discomforts with Sky for me and Wiggo in particular. At this moment I think they amount to nowt but I was not expecting them because of the initial stance Sky took on set up and because of things Wiggins said and did in the past.

Knocking Kimmage back is one and if stories are to be believed it was on Wiggo's say so, that doesn't look good but it may be no more than the fact he doesn't like him. I can't help feeling that maybe he doesn't like him because he's bad mouthed Lance and broken the Omerta, though I've absolutely no reason to think that.

Which leads on to his open admiration of Indurain and Armstrong. It just doesn't chime right, makes me feel uncomfortable, I wished he'd picked other role models.

From the open and easy style he began with, he's become more closed, more aggressive and a touch arrogant. OK he's not a media spokesman but if he'd just stuck to saying the things he used to say up until about 2010 and how he said it, I'd be happier but then pressure does funny things to people.

Then there's Sky. Froome, Porte, Rodgers, all performing beyond what they did with other teams, obviously Sky's methods work.....

Then there's the back tracking over using Rabobank's doctor, the loss of credibility statement and the we'll be asking some questions of him, what questions, what don't you already know. Even Yates's involvement as an ex-motorola member.

Like I said, it all amounts to nothing but Sky and Wiggo are not handling it well, especially after the bold statment of intent, a clean British winner within five years.

It's taken the edge off it a little bit for me but maybe that's because they raised my expectations and their own too high and they haven't reset them yet.

 

[tigger]

Oh no not Kimmage. Not sure what to make of him. On the one hand his stance on doping exposure, based on past experience as a pro, is welcomed by me. On the other, his constant negative cynicism seems nothing more than sour grapes from a very (below?) average pro who just wants to make a name for himself.

However, much as I do and still want to truly believe in Brad and the Sky Team, you just can't help wondering and if Kimmage's comments came from anyone else I would be seriously considering them...

 

[Chuffy]

Kimmage wants to define Sky's transparency for them. They determine their business model and their mode of operations and, inter alia, what transparency means for them, not some chippy journo surely?

If they (or anyone else) get to choose their definition of transparency then the term becomes completely meaningless.

 

[Chuffy]

Oh no not Kimmage. Not sure what to make of him. On the one hand his stance on doping exposure, based on past experience as a pro, is welcomed by me. On the other, his constant negative cynicism seems nothing more than sour grapes from a very (below?) average pro who just wants to make a name for himself.

However, much as I do and still want to truly believe in Brad and the Sky Team, you just can't help wondering and if Kimmage's comments came from anyone else I would be seriously considering them...

"sour grapes", "average pro who just wants to make a name for himself"? Everyone drink! If we carry on the Kimmage drinking game we'll be under the table by teatime...

Kimmage made a name for himself years ago, with journalism that has stood up as honest and accurate. He doesn't need to put the boot into Sky to make a name for himself. If anything, Sky need people like him to give them the stamp of approval. If you look at his experience with Garmin (and Millar wasn't happy either but dealt with it) he went in as a sceptic and came away full of praise for the team and their way of doing things.

He might not be someone you'd want to go for a pint with, but he doesn't deserve the sneers and slights that many people wheel out.

 

[beastie]

Yep. There's a few discomforts with Sky for me and Wiggo in particular. At this moment I think they amount to nowt but I was not expecting them because of the initial stance Sky took on set up and because of things Wiggins said and did in the past.

Knocking Kimmage back is one and if stories are to be believed it was on Wiggo's say so, that doesn't look good but it may be no more than the fact he doesn't like him. I can't help feeling that maybe he doesn't like him because he's bad mouthed Lance and broken the Omerta, though I've absolutely no reason to think that.

Which leads on to his open admiration of Indurain and Armstrong. It just doesn't chime right, makes me feel uncomfortable, I wished he'd picked other role models.

From the open and easy style he began with, he's become more closed, more aggressive and a touch arrogant. OK he's not a media spokesman but if he'd just stuck to saying the things he used to say up until about 2010 and how he said it, I'd be happier but then pressure does funny things to people.

Then there's Sky. Froome, Porte, Rodgers, all performing beyond what they did with other teams, obviously Sky's methods work.....

Then there's the back tracking over using Rabobank's doctor, the loss of credibility statement and the we'll be asking some questions of him, what questions, what don't you already know. Even Yates's involvement as an ex-motorola member.

Like I said, it all amounts to nothing but Sky and Wiggo are not handling it well, especially after the bold statment of intent, a clean British winner within five years.

It's taken the edge off it a little bit for me but maybe that's because they raised my expectations and their own too high and they haven't reset them yet.

Kimmage comes from the right place, but he is also a snide, obnoxious little man with an inflated sense of his own importance. He and Wiggins have not got on for years.

To say Rodgers is over performing now is bollocks, he's a multiple world champion.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

If they (or anyone else) get to choose their definition of transparency then the term becomes completely meaningless.

And if Kimmage or similar idealists* get to choose it it becomes completely undeliverable.

* and he is a hack, paid by the word, and a hack on a mission.

 

[Chuffy]

And if Kimmage or similar idealists* get to choose it it becomes completely undeliverable.

Rubbish. If you pick and chose what you want to hide, that is not being transparent.

* and he is a hack, paid by the word, and a hack on a mission.

Absolute drivel. His recent comments come from an unpaid interview with Shane Stokes of Velonation. And 'hack'? He's a very good, award winning journalist. The only people who don't respect him professionally are idiots who don't want to hear what he has to say.

 

[tigger]

Chuffy, out of interest, keeping Kimmage out of the frame at the moment, what is your view on the Sky riders current levels of performance and the Team's level of transparency?