ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Paul Kimmage setting his sights on Wiggins?(7 Posts)
Kimmage was the only one brave enough to go after Armstrong
So David Walsh didn't have anything to do with it, or sacrifice much?
Who else has actually read Rough Ride?
I don't know what will be revealed in future, but Kimmage is obsessed in an unhealthy way. He is bitter and unforgiving in extremes except where his hero Sean Kelly is concerned. I guess it's good that not everyone jumps on the Bradley is wonderful bandwagon, but I still think I take with grain of salt things that Kimmage says.
Why is the personnel change after the tour win suspicious? If they were doping during that season it would seem positively odd to cut loose a host of people who must have known all about it and present them with an axe to grind against Sky at a time when whistleblowing is being made easier than ever. I particularly don't get his point about Michael Rogers ("one of the strongest riders") leaving; if he's alleging that Rogers was doping as part of a pattern of doping at Sky then why does Rogers' leaving Sky add weight to that allegation, or if he's saying that Rogers wasn't doping and still managed to be one of the strongest riders it rather undermines the other half of his argument that they are all suspiciously good.
And "doctors with previous for doping" means (unless you're privy to extra information) one doctor previously employed by another team at a time when doping is alleged to have been tolerated by that team. Not proven and not even alleged to have been part of an orchestrated strategy by the team or its doctors.
Wiggins "largely silent" on the Armstrong case? Since the USADA report was released, a few seconds' Googling reveals:
Sky News, 11 Oct 2012
Daily Telegraph, 12 Oct 2012 (not clear whether this is based on the Sky News footage or just that he gave a lot of interviews on the 11th in similar terms)
'Wiggins said he hoped the sport could move on: "Its pretty damning. Theres a lot of it and I think the evidence is now overwhelming. In a way this brings an end to the investigation which has been going on for quite a few years. Maybe now, as a sport, we can move forward. My main concern is now Im standing here as the winner of the Tour de France having to now pick up the pieces for other peoples misdemeanours. It is certainly not a one-sided hatchet job, it is pretty damning. It is pretty jaw-dropping the amount of people who have testified against him. I am shocked at the scale of the evidence."'
Guardian, 24 Oct 2012
'Wiggins hit out at the 41-year-old Texan. "I think there is a lot of anger from most people within the sport, it is a sport I love and have always loved," he said. "It is a shame that cycling is being dragged through this again really, not a shame that he has been caught when you get older you start to realise Father Christmas doesn't exist and it is the same with Lance. But it is a shame that us riders here now, we are the one picking the pieces up and having to convince people." [...] When asked whether he thought Armstrong admitting to the charge would help the situation, Wiggins said: "I think so, definitely. But he is a stubborn man and I don't think he is ever going to confess, he has too much to lose."'
Guardian, 2 Nov 2012
'Wiggins describes the corrosive legacy of Armstrong, newly stripped of his seven Tour wins because of his endemic, team-wide doping regime. "It wasn't a surprise," Wiggins says of the report that damned the Texan. "The anger is more: I've got to pick up the pieces. He's still a multimillionaire, and he's not here to answer the questions. I can't not answer them because I've got to go and race next year, and I hate talking about it." Armstrong was never his hero. "He was someone I respected and admired. I've met quite a few sportsmen, but I don't think I've met anybody as powerful as him." He describes Armstrong as "quite an intimidating person to be around" and someone who exists in a cosseted bubble of entourages and chauffeur-driven cars. "If I'm going to Kilburn, I get on a bus. He'd have a car waiting for him with a bodyguard. He'd go to races on a private jet. I take my kids to school. It's what keeps you normal. I don't want my kids growing up as fucking idiots, d'you know what I mean?"'
GQ magazine, 16 January 2013 (not going to cut-and-paste the whole interview here)
largely based on Wiggins earlier vehement anti-doping stance to becoming largely silent on the Armstrong case and also having earlier claimed he'd never work with dopers to being connected to doctors with previous for doping.
He also finds the personnel change by the Sky team after the tour win to be suspicious and the fact that Sky who were pushing an anti-doping agenda had some sort of falling out with him having promised him unlimited access for the season.
Not much in the way of concrete evidence but then that's exactly what was said when Kimmage was the only one brave enough to go after Armstrong and his reputation was dragged through the mud only to be quite spectacularly vindicated.
The similarities seem to be that both Armstrong and Wiggins won the TdF, and both had strong teams.
Is that it? Does he have any evidence?
"If you apply the same standards to Tour winner Bradley Wiggins as to Lance Armstrong, concerning inquiries and logic, then there are similarities which are alarming. Kimmage pointed in particular to the presence of Dr. Geert Leinders on Sky's medical staff in 2011 and 2012. Leinders was previously a doctor at Rabobank during a period when doping is alleged to have been tolerated on the team.
The dominance of their respective teams has also given Kimmage food for thought. "You look at how dominant their teams were: Postal for Armstrong, Sky for Wiggins. They had a core of four, five riders, who rode strongly for those three weeks without one single weak day. You think: is that logical?
You look at what happened after the Tour. Sky threw out the team doctor and three others. Michael Rogers left, he was one of the strongest riders. I don't know anyone who could say that this was a fully convincing Tour win.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.