Is Walsh on the Sky bandwagon?

[Netserk]

How is it ok for Kimmage to believe in Martin based on limit personal time spent with his family whilst Walsh is not allowed to believe in SKY based on his personal experience with them.

Drop the BS.

Walsh is allowed to believe whatever he wants. We are allowed to call BS on his 'arguments' as to why Sky are clean.

PS: Kimmage also believed in Kohl, so I don't see the big change.

 

[pmcg76]

Drop the BS.

Walsh is allowed to believe whatever he wants. We are allowed to call BS on his 'arguments' as to why Sky are clean.

PS: Kimmage also believed in Kohl, so I don't see the big change.

I don't think I am the one who needs to drop the BS.

Why call BS on Walsh and let Kimmage off the hook?? There is a double standard here. Now that is BS.

Also I don't know if Kimmage ever met or talked with Kohl, maybe he did but I thought his belief in Kohl was more based on how Kohl looked absolutely knackered during the 08 Tour.

 

[gooner]

I don't think its stretch to expect that theres more to this than was in the public domain. I was at one of those Kimmage/Walsh talks about a year back and Kimmage commented on Sky that night. His comments were consistent with those hes come out with since, mostly that he doesn't know if they're doping but they DO have questions to answer. Their friendship was fine for a good while after that (based on the fact that there were many more of those talks). It seems to me, on the face of it, that the only thing thats changed is Walsh getting more and more into bed with Sky. Hence I think it wrong to simply assume it was Kimmage that ended the friendship with Walsh, or that there wasn't more to this than meets the eye.



wouldn't Kimmage know the Martin family going back years? I would expect Kimmage's opinion on Dan is based on far more than you suggest.



The beauty of this is that Kimmage doesn't seek to be viewed as an idol. Hes driven by his own passion and his own desire for justice. He doesn't give a flying fcuk what people think of him and he has my utmost admiration for this.

Not giving a **** isn't a reason to believe anything he says. It means nothing. There's plenty of people like that in sport, none more so than a certain Cork man who is now Ireland's assistant but who disgracefully went out and tried to end a fellow professional's career.

Drop the BS.

Walsh is allowed to believe whatever he wants. We are allowed to call BS on his 'arguments' as to why Sky are clean.

PS: Kimmage also believed in Kohl, so I don't see the big change.

There is no BS. I said similar up thread.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1381532&postcount=3607
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1381522&postcount=3604
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1381560&postcount=3611
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=19673&page=362
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1381811&postcount=3627

I seen Walsh getting criticised for the picture at the dinner with Froome. Yet here in Kimmage's Irish Indo video we see him toasting Dan Martin's win with a drink.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/kim...aul-kimmages-video-diary-day-13-29403533.html

In this video Kimmage clearly says an "embedded journalist" is a great way of showing transparency and compares his experience with Sky and Garmin. Now he has given Garmin a clean bill of health but won't recognise it with Walsh who has had more access over a longer period than him. In fact at the start of last year, he told Walsh not to do this with Sky. This only points that it seems good enough for him.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/kim...and-froome-better-walk-the-walk-29424052.html

Not just this, but he has a go at Walsh's columns and refers to the Sunday Times as 'in house' where they're compromised on their reporting. Yet he won't respond to Richard Moore's question about his agent offering him to Sky to do a punditry role for them. That is somewhat hypocritical if true.

Another interview back in November recently came to my attention recently where Kimmage spoke about all this including his fall-out with Walsh before the one that mentioned it a couple of weeks back in the Irish Independent.

The absence of the critical journalism surrounding Sky from The Sunday Times that helped dethrone Lance Armstrong over the past decade has resulted in the fracture of the Dubliners friendship with fellow reporter David Walsh, who still works at The Times. While the duo used holiday together with their families in the past and speak five times in a quiet week, there has been no communication in almost five months.

“There is a little bit more to it, the fact that I was shafted and he might have done more, but ultimately it’s about the stuff he’s written about Sky in the last few months”.

The two time winner of the William Hill Sports Book of the Year feels the fundamental difference between himself and Walsh is that the matter has always been more than writing for him, coming from a family with a strong cycling background. Walsh’s role in his life cannot be overstated. Kimmage owes his second career to his fellow Irishman; he first met him the day he first met his own wife, Anne. “He’s been an incredible mentor, anything I ever learned about the business I’ve learned from David”.

The regret is obvious in his voice, as to be expected for a man with enough close friends to count on one hand. “I don’t know what’s going to happen, whether I’m going to pick up the phone or he’s going to or whether the phone will ever be picked up”.

http://bergkampoftheweek.blogspot.ie/2013/11/kimmages-endless-pursuit-for-justice.html

A way over the top reaction to fall out over Sky.

 

[Digger]

Not giving a **** isn't a reason to believe anything he says. It means nothing. There's plenty of people like that in sport, none more so than a certain Cork man who is now Ireland's assistant but who disgracefully went out and tried to end a fellow professional's career.



There is no BS. I said similar up thread.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1381532&postcount=3607
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1381522&postcount=3604
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1381560&postcount=3611
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=19673&page=362
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1381811&postcount=3627

I seen Walsh getting criticised for the picture at the dinner with Froome. Yet here in Kimmage's Irish Indo video we see him toasting Dan Martin's win with a drink.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/kim...aul-kimmages-video-diary-day-13-29403533.html

In this video Kimmage clearly says an "embedded journalist" is a great way of showing transparency and compares his experience with Sky and Garmin. Now he has given Garmin a clean bill of health but won't recognise it with Walsh who has had more access over a longer period than him. In fact at the start of last year, he told Walsh not to do this with Sky. This only points that it seems good enough for him.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/kim...and-froome-better-walk-the-walk-29424052.html

Not just this, but he has a go at Walsh's columns and refers to the Sunday Times as 'in house' where they're compromised on their reporting. Yet he won't respond to Richard Moore's question about his agent offering him to Sky to do a punditry role for them. That is somewhat hypocritical if true.

Another interview back in November recently came to my attention recently where Kimmage spoke about all this including his fall-out with Walsh before the one that mentioned it a couple of weeks back in the Irish Independent.



http://bergkampoftheweek.blogspot.ie/2013/11/kimmages-endless-pursuit-for-justice.html

A way over the top reaction to fall out over Sky.

Didn't you say you were done with this thread! haha

 

[pmcg76]

What is really strange is how so many here believe that Kimmage is the man to ask the tough questions of SKY.

Well he had his chance with Dan Martin and ended up backing him, yet so many here believe that what Martin has achieved is impossible to achieve without doping. In that case how can Kimmage be the guy to ask the tough questions if he cannot even get the skinny on Martin.

Remember that Martin is one of the top dogs at Garmin and if he is clean, there is a real chance that the rest of the team are clean as well. Again goes against the grain of what so many here believe. Clearly Kimmage is not the man to crack anything.

 

[sniper]

What is really strange is how so many here believe that Kimmage is the man to ask the tough questions of SKY.

well, thus far he's sort of been the only journo, together perhaps with stokes, to ask questions about sky.

Well he had his chance with Dan Martin and ended up backing him, yet so many here believe that what Martin has achieved is impossible to achieve without doping. In that case how can Kimmage be the guy to ask the tough questions if he cannot even get the skinny on Martin.

what exactly has he written about Martin? i don't remember anything by Kimmage on Martin that even comes close to what Walsh has written on Sky.
Has he ever explicitly said he thinks Martin is clean?

Remember that Martin is one of the top dogs at Garmin and if he is clean, there is a real chance that the rest of the team are clean as well.

that is random speculation. might. might not.

Clearly Kimmage is not the man to crack anything

I think most agree that Kimmage is not gonna crack Sky.

 

[pmcg76]

well, thus far he's sort of been the only journo, together perhaps with stokes, to ask questions about sky.


what exactly has he written about Martin? i don't remember anything by Kimmage on Martin that even comes close to what Walsh has written on Sky.
Has he ever explicitly said he thinks Martin is clean?


that is useless speculation.
I think most agree that Kimmage is not gonna crack Sky.

Kimmage expressed his happiness on twitter at Martin winning L-B-L and as gooner posted, showed him toasting Martin's success. He interviewed Martin and his parents in the run-up to the Tour and has said that Martin is the rider he has most faith in. Those are hardly the actions of a man who doesn't believe in Martin, especially when Kimmage is renowned as being so cynical. Getting any sort of approval from Kimmage is like the Golden stamp coming from anybody else.

C'mon now sniper, JV sells the clean team idea and if one of his top guys is doing it clean, there is a very good chance that the guys on the lower steps are also clean. That is hardly crazy specualtion.

 

[sniper]

Kimmage expressed his happiness on twitter at Martin winning L-B-L and as gooner posted, showed him toasting Martin's success. He interviewed Martin and his parents in the run-up to the Tour and has said that Martin is the rider he has most faith in.

indeed. so kimmage on martin is in no way comparable to walsh on sky.
in that interview with martin's parents, kimmage doesn't draw any conclusions in terms of martin's cleanliness.

Those are hardly the actions of a man who doesn't believe in Martin, especially when Kimmage is renowned as being so cynical. Getting any sort of approval from Kimmage is like the Golden stamp coming from anybody else.

sure, he seems to have faith in martin. He might also like the lad, or like his parents. But he doesn't go to any ridiculous length to defend Martin's case like Walsh did with Sky.
If Froome turns out to be dirty, Walsh will look like an utter fool.
If Martin turns out to be dirty, Kimmage won't.

C'mon now sniper, JV sells the clean team idea and if one of his top guys is doing it clean, there is a very good chance that the guys on the lower steps are also clean. That is hardly crazy specualtion

martin being clean is speculation.
and even if martin is clean, that doesn't make hesjedal or millar or talansky clean.

 

[hrotha]

What is really strange is how so many here believe that Kimmage is the man to ask the tough questions of SKY.

Well he had his chance with Dan Martin and ended up backing him, yet so many here believe that what Martin has achieved is impossible to achieve without doping. In that case how can Kimmage be the guy to ask the tough questions if he cannot even get the skinny on Martin.

Remember that Martin is one of the top dogs at Garmin and if he is clean, there is a real chance that the rest of the team are clean as well. Again goes against the grain of what so many here believe. Clearly Kimmage is not the man to crack anything.

That's absurd. Martin hasn't dominated the racing calendar, he hasn't been associated to a doping doctor, his team doesn't collectively pull unbelievable performances on a regular basis, he didn't come out of nowhere together with another teammate of his, and there's not a history of puzzling and apparently contradictory statements regarding any obscure disease. What tough questions should Kimmage have asked him?

 

[Benotti69]

What is really strange is how so many here believe that Kimmage is the man to ask the tough questions of SKY.

Well he had his chance with Dan Martin and ended up backing him, yet so many here believe that what Martin has achieved is impossible to achieve without doping. In that case how can Kimmage be the guy to ask the tough questions if he cannot even get the skinny on Martin.

Remember that Martin is one of the top dogs at Garmin and if he is clean, there is a real chance that the rest of the team are clean as well. Again goes against the grain of what so many here believe. Clearly Kimmage is not the man to crack anything.

I dont remember too many not believing in JV and his 'clean' team. IIRC when JV posted here all he got was praise and lots of posts sucking up to him. I think i can count on one hand those who doubt JV.

But that doesn't fit your 'so many'.

LBL is a monument. Look at its past winners. Look at who Martin beat on the day. Of course there are questions, but you wont find the answers, JV spends $500,000.00 a year on internal testing at Garmin to keep his boys on the 'straight and narrow' from testing positive

 

[pmcg76]

That's absurd. Martin hasn't dominated the racing calendar, he hasn't been associated to a doping doctor, his team doesn't collectively pull unbelievable performances on a regular basis, he didn't come out of nowhere together with another teammate of his, and there's not a history of puzzling and apparently contradictory statements regarding any obscure disease. What tough questions should Kimmage have asked him?

As I wrote in my post, there are plenty here who believe what Dan Martin is doing is impossible clean. Those are not my views. If those same people want Kimmage to tackle SKY, why were they not jumping up and down wanting Kimmage to give Martin a harder time as one doper is the same as the next are they not and in their eyes Martin is a doper, period. Is Kimmage only against certain dopers or all dopers.

 

[Benotti69]

As I wrote in my post, there are plenty here who believe what Dan Martin is doing is impossible clean. Those are not my views. If those same people want Kimmage to tackle SKY, why were they not jumping up and down wanting Kimmage to give Martin a harder time as one doper is the same as the next are they not and in their eyes Martin is a doper, period. Is Kimmage only against certain dopers or all dopers.

Care to name the plenty?

Beno69
Sniper
BroDeal?
Hog?

..........

 

[pmcg76]

indeed. so kimmage on martin is in no way comparable to walsh on sky.
in that interview with martin's parents, kimmage doesn't draw any conclusions in terms of martin's cleanliness.
sure, he seems to have faith in martin. He might also like the lad, or like his parents. But he doesn't go to any ridiculous length to defend Martin's case like Walsh did with Sky.
If Froome turns out to be dirty, Walsh will look like an utter fool.
If Martin turns out to be dirty, Kimmage won't.


martin being clean is speculation.
and even if martin is clean, that doesn't make hesjedal or millar or talansky clean.

Well Martin has far out performed Millar over the last few years and has had more success than Talansky as well. I would put Martin as No 1 or 2 on the Garmin team.

Considering the fact there is nothing really noteworthy against D.Martin doping wise and that he has the support of one the most noted cynics associated with cycling, I would suggest believing he is doping is a lot more speculative than the alternative.

Yes I agree that Walsh has gone OTT defending SKY and I have said many of his excuses are nonsense. However his basic belief in SKY is based on the same sort of belief Kimmage has in Martin.

 

[del1962]

This is the article by Kimmage on Dan Martin

 

[pmcg76]

Care to name the plenty?

Beno69
Sniper
BroDeal?
Hog?

..........

I would think anybody who throws out 'they all dope and nothing will change' line fits this category. You do yourself a disservice by believing there are only a handful of you.

 

[Benotti69]

I would think anybody who throws out 'they all dope and nothing will change' line fits this category. You do yourself a disservice by believing there are only a handful of you.

so no other names to add..........

 

[pmcg76]

I dont remember too many not believing in JV and his 'clean' team. IIRC when JV posted here all he got was praise and lots of posts sucking up to him. I think i can count on one hand those who doubt JV.

But that doesn't fit your 'so many'.

LBL is a monument. Look at its past winners. Look at who Martin beat on the day. Of course there are questions, but you wont find the answers, JV spends $500,000.00 a year on internal testing at Garmin to keep his boys on the 'straight and narrow' from testing positive

Well L-B-L was the race that Kimmage got all excited over tweeting his happiness. It is not me who is looking for the answers, I believe it possible. What I want to know is why the great Kimmage wasn't asking the questions, is that not why he is revered here, for asking the tough questions or does that only apply to SKY.

 

[pmcg76]

so no other names to add..........

Oh cmon on now, there are lots. Of the top of my head, sceptic, Dear Wiggo, Moose and lots more who post less frequently. I am hardly going to remember every poster who has that belief.

 

[Benotti69]

Well L-B-L was the race that Kimmage got all excited over tweeting his happiness. It is not me who is looking for the answers, I believe it possible. What I want to know is why the great Kimmage wasn't asking the questions, is that not why he is revered here, for asking the tough questions or does that only apply to SKY.

You seem to want to find fault.

Kimmage seems to think Garmin are clean. I dont. I like Kimmage. But no one is perfect, except you of course.

To compare Kimmage and Walsh is misguided at best. Walsh got to spend a lot of time with Sky. Kimmage interviewed Brailsford and Wiggins.

Kimmage got Brailsford to admit to lying about being around when Millar was arrested by the Gendarmes. Brailsford's week excuses for that smelled back then just like all the crap coming out of Sky since they started blowing away all the old time doping teams.

If you want to know why Kimmage doesn't doubt Dam Martin email him at the independent.

My 2 cents is that Kimmage fell for JVs slick BS when he embedded with Slipstream and has not bothered to take a second close look. If he did he might realise that JV aint what he seems.

 

[Benotti69]

Oh cmon on now, there are lots. Of the top of my head, sceptic, Dear Wiggo, Moose and lots more who post less frequently. I am hardly going to remember every poster who has that belief.

No but as a regular poster you might name 20 if they are so plenty.

I think maybe 10 max (and i doubt that many) dont believe Garmin are clean.

 

[Benotti69]

Can you name a clean winner of LBL in the last 30 years?

 

[hrotha]

As I wrote in my post, there are plenty here who believe what Dan Martin is doing is impossible clean. Those are not my views. If those same people want Kimmage to tackle SKY, why were they not jumping up and down wanting Kimmage to give Martin a harder time as one doper is the same as the next are they not and in their eyes Martin is a doper, period. Is Kimmage only against certain dopers or all dopers.

Because "how come you're beating those dopers if you're clean" doesn't make for good journalism. There's no way you'd get a meaningful answer to that question. You need a certain degree of evidence or at least signs before you can ask hard-hitting questions and fish for contradictions. Most people here realize that.

 

[pmcg76]

Can you name a clean winner of LBL in the last 30 years?

Well there is nothing against Eric Van Lancker or Dirk DeWolf AFAIK, nothing against Iglinsky either other than he rides for Astana and now Dan Martin.

 

[pmcg76]

Because "how come you're beating those dopers if you're clean" doesn't make for good journalism. There's no way you'd get a meaningful answer to that question. You need a certain degree of evidence or at least signs before you can ask hard-hitting questions and fish for contradictions. Most people here realize that.

I don't disagree with that but there does seem to an idea that Kimmage would have been a better man to be embedded with SKY than Walsh, I don't think Kimmage would have found anymore out than Walsh. Way back I said I was puzzled to why Walsh and Kimmage fell out when their respective beliefs are more or less based on personal contact. Kimmage seem's very ****ed at Walsh and that is what I am curious about.

 

[Benotti69]

Well there is nothing against Eric Van Lancker or Dirk DeWolf AFAIK, nothing against Iglinsky either other than he rides for Astana and now Dan Martin.

Van Lancker rode for Panasonic and Geert Leinders was the team doc

Dirk DeWolf could be a clean winner.

30 years and 1 or maybe 2 were clean? Hmm inspires confidence that the sport is clean

Just looked at last 30 years of winners of MilanSanRemo. Doubt 1 was clean!

No doubt the same for the other monuments.