Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[ebandit]

.............boring!

ha ha...........bored guys facing another barrage of dull questions screams

.................................doping!

Mark L

 

[Maxiton]

Sky is to cycling as News International is to journalism. Neither of them falls very far from the Murdoch tree.

 

[thehog]

The body language on them says a lot IMO.

Bang to rights.

PKs question went way too long. As soon as Kimmage started asking the question they all tensed up.

Porte knows that Paul knows hence his body language.

They might as well cut to the chase. Leinders was hired because he knew what most teams were doing doping wise.

 

[Clausfarre]

PKs question went way too long. As soon as Kimmage started asking the question they all tensed up.

Porte knows that Paul knows hence his body language.

They might as well cut to the chase. Leinders was hired because he knew what most teams were doing doping wise.

They weren't properly instructed then. The right answer was of course "we stopped working with Geert Leinders 10-15 years ago".

 

[LaFlorecita]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X50Uc2FdXy8



Never seen that video before.

Gotta love it

The body language is enough really.

Brailsford overly aggressive and annoyed, his response to the first question is hilarious

Porte super uncomfortable, looking away most of the time

Froome very nervous

 

[BradCantona]

If I put a video up on here of me mowing the lawn, I swear some of you would be convinced it proved I was on a doping regime

 

[BroDeal]

Hi, Joachim.

 

[the sceptic]

Hi, Joachim.

already had him on ignore after only 12 posts.

glad he only stops by to leave a troll post every other month now.

 

[Ferminal]

I'm just waiting for the day that a "journalist" asks a question of a rider/team about doping with a response that precipitates into a full blown doping confession "yeh ok, you got me, I dope."

 

[BradCantona]

Troll post?

When did a healthy - rather than fruitcake extreme - level of skepticism become trolling?

"The body language is enough really", "Bang to rights"... seriously, it's pathetic

 

[frenchfry]

The big problem with Brailsford's closing arguments is that up to now the "extremely cynical" people that he refers to as being the fringe of the general population have been right on.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

If I put a video up on here of me mowing the lawn, I swear some of you would be convinced it proved I was on a doping regime

You certainly be on grass, if nothing stronger.

 

[martinvickers]

I'm just waiting for the day that a "journalist" asks a question of a rider/team about doping with a response that precipitates into a full blown doping confession "yeh ok, you got me, I dope."

That rather assumes that the point of journalist's questions at such events is to get answers.

 

[Ripper]

If I put a video up on here of me mowing the lawn, I swear some of you would be convinced it proved I was on a doping regime

LMAO - trollllllllll

 

[Ripper]

Gotta love it

The body language is enough really.

Brailsford overly aggressive and annoyed, his response to the first question is hilarious

Porte super uncomfortable, looking away most of the time

Froome very nervous

Actually, I don't find anything overly unusual about their body language or responses. If DB is totally on the level (not saying he actually is), then this response is still normal.

It does look like RP needs some coaching ... to me he looks less uncomfortable and more just irritated/PO. Of course, sometimes RP comes across a quite aggressive and full of bravado, not sure if that means anything more than that is his personality

Disclaimer Note - Please, let's not have anyone accuse me of being a Sky fan or believing there is no doping matters a-happening. All you need to look at is a history of some of my posts.

 

[Ferminal]

That rather assumes that the point of journalist's questions at such events is to get answers.

Well it's stupid either way. If you're genuinely interested in their response you've already failed because all you're going to be fed is PR garbage which has no relevance to the greater question. If you're grandstanding then you're not achieving anything (as the response is predetermined) other than being an unnecessary annoyance during the middle of a race.

Sure, to be the robotic journalist you need to hear from "all sides" but at least by asking in private you save everyone the grief.

 

[martinvickers]

Well it's stupid either way. If you're genuinely interested in their response you've already failed because all you're going to be fed is PR garbage which has no relevance to the greater question. If you're grandstanding then you're not achieving anything (as the response is predetermined) other than being an unnecessary annoyance during the middle of a race.

Sure, to be the robotic journalist you need to hear from "all sides" but at least by asking in private you save everyone the grief.

100%. In this case, Kimmo was doing the latter. Understandably, and from decent motives, but if you wanna bring down sky, that ain't the way to do it, really. It ain't the way, really to bring down anybody, unless they want to be, or are having a complete brainfart.

sorry, personal bugbear, but i just hate 'pressers' with a passion anyway, in almost all walks of life.Even in my day job the amount of time wasted, energy spent because of them, and all for no end.

 

[the sceptic]

100%. In this case, Kimmo was doing the latter. Understandably, and from decent motives, but if you wanna bring down sky, that ain't the way to do it, really. It ain't the way, really to bring down anybody, unless they want to be, or are having a complete brainfart.

sorry, personal bugbear, but i just hate 'pressers' with a passion anyway, in almost all walks of life.Even in my day job the amount of time wasted, energy spent because of them, and all for no end.

As a journalist what else can he do?

If noone asks any critical questions then Walsh and Brailsford will get their utopian North Korean society where they can write whatever fairytale they want and the brits will eat everything up.

Brailsford would look like a clown and lose all credibility if someone asked him some real questions. And then maybe others would start to take notice and ask some critical questions themselves.

But until then, its hard to blame the brits for being ignorant when they hardly know that an alternative view exists.

Maybe Kimmage is just a jealous hater because he didnt get an invite to the great sky party, what do I know. But a little critical thinking is better than nothing dont you think Martin?

 

[gooner]

Well it's stupid either way. If you're genuinely interested in their response you've already failed because all you're going to be fed is PR garbage which has no relevance to the greater question. If you're grandstanding then you're not achieving anything (as the response is predetermined) other than being an unnecessary annoyance during the middle of a race.

Sure, to be the robotic journalist you need to hear from "all sides" but at least by asking in private you save everyone the grief.

Agree wholeheartedly with this.

It should be done more in private and there is nothing constructive to come out of it in a press conference. Take the question on Leinders, it has been asked on numerous times before Kimmage put it forward and he knows this very well. It's covered territory and nothing new of substance was to be achieved by it. Similarly asking Brailsford, how Kennaugh lost 5kg after Romandy especially as Kennaugh mentioned it publicly himself.

Go back to Lance, it was the Walsh, Ballester and Ressiot type of journalism which did the trick in exposing it to the general public. It wasn't in press conferences which did it.

The way Kimmage and Stokes are going about on this if they continue on the same path, will achieve jack **** in the years to come, I guarantee. It's a simple strong suspicion which isn't enough by any stretch of the means and on we go to next year's Tour with the same repeat of the same old questions, just like Leinders once again.

Like MartinV says, I have little interest in press conferences and I always use the pre-match ones on a Friday before the Premiership football starts on a weekend as a classic example. A complete waste of time and Gordon Strachan when he was Celtic manager was right when he said they should be just banned.

In many cases, journalists just play to the gallery at them.

 

[Maxiton]

But by asking them pointed questions, in public, you put them on the spot. They sweat and squirm and twist, and everyone watching can see it. That's an important part of what reporters do, when they do it.

And even when it doesn't work immediately, as when Kimmage confronted Armstrong, it often comes back to bite the target in the *** later (again, as with Armstrong).

These suspect teams need to be confronted point blank in public more often. Every racing journalist, so called, should be doing it at every turn.

 

[gooner]

But by asking them pointed questions, in public, you put them on the spot. They sweat and squirm and twist, and everyone watching can see it. That's an important part of what reporters do, when they do it.

And even when it doesn't work immediately, as when Kimmage confronted Armstrong, it often comes back to bite the target in the *** later (again, as with Armstrong).

These suspect teams need to be confronted point blank in public more often. Every racing journalist, so called, should be doing it at every turn.

The point is it's recycled over and over again even when it's covered ground like the Leinders question. There was nothing new learned from that and if some think there was something new in that press conference, they're really clutching at straws. If there's new questions to be asked, by all means.

Kimmage and co can continue it if they want but it won't achieve anything. His columns in the Sunday Independent during the Tour were nothing of new and weren't exactly ground breaking.

On we go to this year's Tour press conferences and a continuation of the repetitive questions knowing full well what the answers are going to be beforehand.

John Leicester with AP asking Froome is he doping. Like come on, what do we expect here?

Some of these journalists are just image concious ones trying to give the impression of doing the digging and that all is learned from the Lance debacle.

Give me a shout when we see stuff similar to what Walsh, Ballester and Ressiot did.

We just seen last night Matt Lawton writing a piece based on a source at the UCI saying the computers seized had damning evidence on them. This is more of the constructive digging and the type of journalism that matters most when helping people to form more clear concrete opinions, not articles that are done on a mere suspicion or a strong hunch.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

But by asking them pointed questions, in public, you put them on the spot. They sweat and squirm and twist, and everyone watching can see it. That's an important part of what reporters do, when they do it.

And even when it doesn't work immediately, as when Kimmage confronted Armstrong, it often comes back to bite the target in the *** later (again, as with Armstrong).

These suspect teams need to be confronted point blank in public more often. Every racing journalist, so called, should be doing it at every turn.

Whilst I see the validity of the point Ferminal is making, I like the cut of your post's jib, and agree.

Keep 'em honest or at least let us see their squeamish responses.

 

[Ferminal]

But why focus on just the person who is leading the race or won a stage? Next day someone equally questionable comes out and sweeps the lot.

The focus should always be on the wider problem because doping is not just one or two people. I guess that may not be the least loss-making approach to take for legacy media. But then what happens when those one or two you've targeted go under is you're back in 2012 where apparently one guy made everyone dope and now that he's gone there's nothing to worry about.

 

[Freddythefrog]

It should be done in private !

Agree wholeheartedly with this.

It should be done more in private and there is nothing constructive to come out of it in a press conference. ......
The way Kimmage and Stokes are going about on this if they continue on the same path, will achieve jack **** in the years to come, I guarantee.

.....I have little interest in press conferences and I always use the pre-match ones on a Friday before the Premiership football starts on a weekend as a classic example. A complete waste of time and Gordon Strachan when he was Celtic manager was right when he said they should be just banned.

This is very concept funny indeed.

Andy Sutcliffe asked and was told in private ! None of these guys putting their head above the water was a major part of the problem. Kimmage certainly gets the OK from me for Grandstanding and if he is a thorn in Sir David's side, during the race then I am more than happy about that. If you want the story to come out without modification use Wilcockson. His latest homage to our hero is here and you can be the first to watch the youtube clip here (zero views - I have never seen that before!) As to Gordon or Sir David or anyone else thinking that a press conference is a waste of time, it is easy, don't bother to turn up. These guys are only there because they want their version of the story to come out. They just want clones of Wilcockson in attendance.

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

As to Gordon or Sir David or anyone else thinking that a press conference is a waste of time, it is easy, don't bother to turn up. These guys are only there because they want their version of the story to come out.

I think footie managers are contractually obliged to turn up at press conferences. Some seem to actively enjoy them. Mourinho in his first spell at Chelsea seemed to positively revel in them.