Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[Benotti69]

Oh dear, ban difficult questions after they have been asked once. Well done Gooner and Vicky, maybe if Walsh took that line of thinking he would have given Armstrong the all clear

We still have not had Sky answer how one the most promising youngsters in the peloton has become a domestique and grupetto fodder have become TdF winners!!! That needs some explaining!!!

I like that hard questions are repeated.

That Sky are clean becomes more and more of a joke.

Crankpunk posted about Froome's comments. Journalists should be writing this....

http://crankpunk.com/2014/01/02/the-omerta-is-dead-long-live-the-omerta/

 

[bobbins]

The clues are out there. In the same way that the USPS fraud was well known but ignored, there are plenty out there who know some of the Sky story. It is up to Kimmage or someone else to join the dots.

Follow the money would be a good start with Leinders a close second.

 

[gooner]

Oh dear, ban difficult questions after they have been asked once. Well done Gooner and Vicky, maybe if Walsh took that line of thinking he would have given Armstrong the all clear

We still have not had Sky answer how one the most promising youngsters in the peloton has become a domestique and grupetto fodder have become TdF winners!!! That needs some explaining!!!

I like that hard questions are repeated.

That Sky are clean becomes more and more of a joke.

Crankpunk posted about Froome's comments. Journalists should be writing this....

http://crankpunk.com/2014/01/02/the-omerta-is-dead-long-live-the-omerta/

Who said anything about not asking difficult questions? Just in your own world and mind did you come to that conclusion.

It's simple, it's grand having a press conference at the right time but they are just done to a saturation point in modern sport where it's just repetitive nonsense back and forth.

I find nothing thrilling or informative from that and Kimmage achieved next to nothing in the summer through it. He can ask about Leinders again next year and it'd be the same crap going around in tedious circles.

As Ferminal said, it's the wider issue of doping as a whole is what needs to be addressed. Plus, the whole concept of doctors in the sport. There's a lot more that needs to be done in this regards and it doesn't end with Leinders out of the sport.

A fixation on one target by journalists won't help matters one bit.

 

[Benotti69]

Who said anything about not asking difficult questions? Just in your own world and mind did you come to that conclusion.

tsk personal attack.

It's simple, it's grand having a press conference at the right time but they are just done to a saturation point in modern sport where it's just repetitive nonsense back and forth.

IT is simple. A 'Media' press conference is for the media asking questions, not a love in.

I find nothing thrilling or informative from that and Kimmage achieved next to nothing in the summer through it. He can ask about Leinders again next year and it'd be the same crap going around in tedious circles.

Sky created this situation, yet you blame Kimmage. Well done for being so accepting of Sky getting riders from the Grupetto to win the TdF and with a doping doctor and riders with a doping history on the team as DS, but this should be ignored.

As Ferminal said, it's the wider issue of doping as a whole is what needs to be addressed. Plus, the whole concept of doctors in the sport. There's a lot more that needs to be done in this regards and it doesn't end with Leinders out of the sport.

The more the doping is addressed by the media the more likely something will be done by those in charge.

 

[The Hitch]

There are so many better questions one can ask than- Chris are you doping- cue read your answer from memory, or db - why isn't ebh winning the tour.

E.g.- db, last year you patronizingly insinuated that attacking cycling was proof of doping, and that in clean cycling, mountains will be ridden the sky way - less attacks.

Could you explain then for us 1 why you believe something that is simply a tactic- attacking to break slipstream, is suggestive of doping and why you then say something far more directly related to actual performance - climbing speed, should not be taken into consideration whatsoever when measuring suspicion?

More importantly could you explain to us, why, if attacks are suggestive of doping was froome able to attack 4 times on ventoux without ever paying the price for the attacks? When you said those who attack are likely doping, did you mean just all the non sky riders, or is froome now suspicious to you as well.

Throw the bull**** straight back at him.

Asking them - do you dope, is playing their game. Froome says never and their target media- the UK one, rushes in to reprint the story - froome "Im clean". and paints froome and sky as victims of big bad lance rather than of their own bs.

 

[gooner]

tsk personal attack.

You got the response for intentionally putting my opinion on a wrong position. Don't add arms and legs then.

IT is simple. A 'Media' press conference is for the media asking questions, not a love in.

AFAIK, I think there's a press conference everyday for the yellow jersey plus one for the teams before the Tour even starts. That's outside of the written journalists hanging around the team buses before and after the stage along with the multiple TV interviews. You can add in the coverage and interviews they get in the preceeding months beforehand and where the Leinders topic was covered significantly.

All this leads to many meaningless press conferences. Football is the prime example.

Sky created this situation, yet you blame Kimmage. Well done for being so accepting of Sky getting riders from the Grupetto to win the TdF and with a doping doctor and riders with a doping history on the team as DS, but this should be ignored.

Leinders remains in the memory but going over it incessantly with the same question isn't going to dig up something new. You might think he's the mastermind but the success has got even better in his absence and with those DS gone. I'm interested in how they've still managed to achieve this persistently afterwards.

 

[martinvickers]

As a journalist what else can he do?

Investigate. Interview former colleagues. Do the work.

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?

Critical thinking good. Cynical thinking pointless. Learn the difference.

When JTL was pulled from the worlds, Walsh, the much reviled Walsh, smelt something, asked around, got the story, broke the story. A story which by any standard, makes Sky look bad - maybe worse than they actually deserve on the facts, who knows, but it's PR image poison.

Where were the rest of them? Why is nobody interviewing Barry, De Jongh, hell, Leinders himself? Why is nobody talking to the ex track girls who can't stand Brailsford - Houvenaghal DESPISES Sutton - has she been approached? Romero, even Pendleton all can't stand them. They clearly don't have a great relationship with the Yates boys, or one might suspect Nicole Cooke - who also seems to genuinely despise dopers and would like nothing more than to talk.

When you have a machine like the BC Olympic development squad, that jettisons young cyclists like confetti in darwinian style, you'll have a lot of disgruntlement with former insiders, perhaps with tales to tell.

And yet...nada.

No, we get this presser bullsh!t.

Because it's easier to LOOK hard than actually try and find something out.

I'm not actually sure you even want Sky questioned really, because you already think you know all the real answers. You just seem to want them insulted, because its fun to watch. Doping fight as entertainment. Fair enough, whatever pleases; it's not for me.

Too many dead cyclists for me to find enjoyment in pure baiting, even when, as in the kimmage/armstrong 'cancer has returned' case, the cheating b*stard deserves it.

 

[bobbins]

Investigate. Interview former colleagues. Do the work.



Critical thinking good. Cynical thinking pointless. Learn the difference.

When JTL was pulled from the worlds, Walsh, the much reviled Walsh, smelt something, asked around, got the story, broke the story. A story which by any standard, makes Sky look bad - maybe worse than they actually deserve on the facts, who knows, but it's PR image poison.

Where were the rest of them? Why is nobody interviewing Barry, De Jongh, hell, Leinders himself? Why is nobody talking to the ex track girls who can't stand Brailsford - Houvenaghal DESPISES Sutton - has she been approached? Romero, even Pendleton all can't stand them. They clearly don't have a great relationship with the Yates boys, or one might suspect Nicole Cooke - who also seems to genuinely despise dopers and would like nothing more than to talk.

When you have a machine like the BC Olympic development squad, that jettisons young cyclists like confetti in darwinian style, you'll have a lot of disgruntlement with former insiders, perhaps with tales to tell.

And yet...nada.

No, we get this presser bullsh!t.

Because it's easier to LOOK hard than actually try and find something out.

I'm not actually sure you even want Sky questioned really, because you already think you know all the real answers. You just seem to want them insulted, because its fun to watch. Doping fight as entertainment. Fair enough, whatever pleases; it's not for me.

Too many dead cyclists for me to find enjoyment in pure baiting, even when, as in the kimmage/armstrong 'cancer has returned' case, the cheating b*stard deserves it.

No one talks because they're scared. If they did, they'd be out of cycling forever. They don't call Dave B 'Mugabe' for no reason!

 

[Wallace and Gromit]

No one talks because they're scared. If they did, they'd be out of cycling forever. They don't call Dave B 'Mugabe' for no reason!

Romero, Pendleton and Cooke are already out of cycling forever though, so fear of this isn't why they're not telling the Clinic what it wants to hear.

 

[Ferminal]

People don't talk regardless unless they have something to gain/nothing to lose. Under the right circumstances people are happy avoid truthful answers for the "greater good" even if all that means is that they can get on with their fairly comfortable day-to-day existence.

I'm sure Landis would still rather be a Tour de France winner than the guy who opened a can on Armstrong et al. Heck he was content to settle for a Vuelta ride.

 

[The Hitch]

Investigate. Interview former colleagues. Do the work.



Critical thinking good. Cynical thinking pointless. Learn the difference.

When JTL was pulled from the worlds, Walsh, the much reviled Walsh, smelt something, asked around, got the story, broke the story. A story which by any standard, makes Sky look bad - maybe worse than they actually deserve on the facts, who knows, but it's PR image poison.

Where were the rest of them? Why is nobody interviewing Barry, De Jongh, hell, Leinders himself? Why is nobody talking to the ex track girls who can't stand Brailsford - Houvenaghal DESPISES Sutton - has she been approached? Romero, even Pendleton all can't stand them. They clearly don't have a great relationship with the Yates boys, or one might suspect Nicole Cooke - who also seems to genuinely despise dopers and would like nothing more than to talk.

When you have a machine like the BC Olympic development squad, that jettisons young cyclists like confetti in darwinian style, you'll have a lot of disgruntlement with former insiders, perhaps with tales to tell.

And yet...nada.

No, we get this presser bullsh!t.

Because it's easier to LOOK hard than actually try and find something out.

I'm not actually sure you even want Sky questioned really, because you already think you know all the real answers. You just seem to want them insulted, because its fun to watch. Doping fight as entertainment. Fair enough, whatever pleases; it's not for me.

Too many dead cyclists for me to find enjoyment in pure baiting, even when, as in the kimmage/armstrong 'cancer has returned' case, the cheating b*stard deserves it.

That all sounds so utopian to me. Ask and you get the answers. As if a cycling team would never lie. As if Brailsford wouldn't lie in private, even though he does it most of the time in public.
Maybe if you are Sky's unoficial press officer who has began saying Froome is clean as a matter of fact, portraying Brailsford as the greatest mind in professional sport and leaving only mockery and insults for anyone who would doubt Sky is clean. Maybe then yes you do get an answer from Brailsford if you ask questions. But even then you don't know if he is telling the truth and the one person in the world who's judgment on the matter of whether Brailsford is telling the truth that I absolutely cannot trust is that of his number 1 fan.

Btw I don't THINK I know what Brailsford said, I KNOW what Brailsford said

"If people want the entertainment value of riders attacking each other, stopping, attacking each other again and again, then go back to 'old cycling', which will give you the capability to do that.If you want clean sport and clean cycling, then it's going to be different. You can't have it both ways. There's an element of reality about what were doing."

I want him questioned on that. NOT by Walsh in private. No, we saw what happens when its Walsh in private doing that.

Walsh "i heard something that maybe you said something nice about Lance"
Wiggins "Dave, write that i only said one thing in 2008 and that was cos i was really really scared of lance destroying my life, even though it makes no sense since 99% of riders never said anything about lance and didnt have their careers destroyed, write that anyway.
And DO NOT, under any circumstances say anything about the 50 times i stood by lance and defended him up until USADA. Dont mention me bullying Lances detractors as part of our Omerta deal either. OK?"
Walsh "You got it Brad. One thing, 2008. Here, thats what I wrote, it look ok to you?"
Wiggins "let me see. Yep thats fine"
Walsh "ok, next the tesco bit"
Wiggins "huh"
Walsh "You know, where I write that you would rather stack shelves in tesco and struggle to meet the next cheque, than dope, get a knighthood, win millions and guarantee a prosperous future for your kids"
Wiggins "lol, what a loser I have to pretend to be. ok, sounds good though"

Maybe thats not how the conversation went. Maybe Walsh genuinly had no idea Wiggins was Armstrong's number 1 fan.
But asking a question without doing any research, and presenting yourself as the ultimate judge on whether Sky are clean, without actually knowing any of the reasons why people doubt them in the first place, is just as bad as cooperating with them. Its the same result.

 

[Benotti69]

You got the response for intentionally putting my opinion on a wrong position. Don't add arms and legs then.

AFAIK, I think there's a press conference everyday for the yellow jersey plus one for the teams before the Tour even starts. That's outside of the written journalists hanging around the team buses before and after the stage along with the multiple TV interviews. You can add in the coverage and interviews they get in the preceeding months beforehand and where the Leinders topic was covered significantly.

I have no problem with any who questions teams about their doping.

All this leads to many meaningless press conferences. Football is the prime example.

Football, meh!

Leinders remains in the memory but going over it incessantly with the same question isn't going to dig up something new. You might think he's the mastermind but the success has got even better in his absence and with those DS gone. I'm interested in how they've still managed to achieve this persistently afterwards.

Leinders time at Sky still remains in the dark. As for his absence, who said he is gone and not still working with Sky? Ferrari manages to work with many athletes across many sports despite his notoriety and being banned.

 

[the sceptic]

. Doping fight as entertainment. Fair enough, whatever pleases; it's not for me.

Are you sure about that Martin?

Jimmy, you gotta learn to enjoy it. Hell, I'm even thinking of un-ignoring the hog, cause he's good for a laugh. I'm beginning to admire his 'indefatigability'.

Just remember, none of it in here really matters. It might be nice if it did, but it would need to be a different kinda place. Enjoy it for what it is. God knows, i wish track and field news or athletics weekly had a place like this!!

Personally, i'm looking for the first froome based clinic-anuerism, and hoping Paddy Power will give me in play odds.

I know. sometimes you can't help but laugh at the lunacy of it all.

Maybe he dopes, maybe he doesn't.

But rest assured, the clinic will amuse, come what may.

Yep, that's about it.

To be absolutely fair, there are a handful of people in the Clinic, on both sides, who actually care, and actually sometimes make sense.

But for very many, it's just an avenue to vent dislikes and likes, and pretend there's a moral basis to their whims - no more serious than football fans calling another teams star striker a 'diver' or midfielder 'a thug' and entirely ignoring their own miscreants. All the while knowing not a damn thing about football.

And hey, good luck to them, these are hard times, you get your amusement where you can.

I for one intend to enjoy the Froome and Berti threads thoroughly when Le Tour kicks off.

And I intend to broadly keep my actual anger about doping for an arena where it might actually do some good, and if possible for people who actually matter. Life passes much more easily when you accept such realities.

It's all part of the Carnivale. If you don't want to see the two headed snakes and the bearded lady, you don't come in...

You misunderstand - I come to BE entertained, not to entertain.

It's your guys posts provide the humour, lads, not me. I just enjoy it. gotta get your chuckles somewhere, right?

If this place was a bit more cool headed, we could all have sensible conversations - and let's be clear - I watched both races today, and it WAS ridiculous, so I'm far from unconvertible - but instead, everybody ratchets up the sarcastic nonsense, and then acts hurt when it's laughed at.

Look, I'm putting a lot of hope in Walsh at the minute. I can't put it any other way than that.

 

[martinvickers]

Are you sure about that Martin?

Absolutely positive. You've just given a whole load of examples of me laughing....AT THE CLINIC.

Not one of me laughing at the sport, or doping within the sport, or attmepts to stop doping. Indeed, my real and serious anger at actual. you know, doping, is mentioned several times in the very examples you give.

And there, Sceptic, is the key difference between you and me.

You treat the sport, and riders, as a joke, even as the riders die, or try to top themselves.

I just think you and your ilk are the joke.

Big difference.

 

[Race Radio]

http://talksport.com/cycling/sir-br...ersey-pride-and-challenging-doping-hypocrites

This interview should drive some folks crazy

“Even [journalist and former pro] Paul Kimmage, to an extent. Someone summed it up for me: ‘Paul Kimmage: he took drugs, and he was still ****.’ And he has the cheek to challenge us on a daily basis. So it’s a funny old thing.”

I hope Kimmage gets a chance to interview him. Should be interesting

 

[Digger]

http://talksport.com/cycling/sir-br...ersey-pride-and-challenging-doping-hypocrites

This interview should drive some folks crazy





I hope Kimmage gets a chance to interview him. Should be interesting

Does it not madden you

 

[Race Radio]

Does it not madden you

Which part?

Wiggins comments are silly and his ducking of Kimmage is ridiculous. Kimmage is an excellent interviewer, the smartest thing Wiggins could do is sit down with Paul for 4-5 hours.....unless he is too scared.

 

[JimmyFingers]

I thought it hilarious. Wiggins consistently manages to out-troll even the worst on here.

And it's well established the two if them don't get on

 

[the sceptic]

Which part?

Wiggins comments are silly and his ducking of Kimmage is ridiculous. Kimmage is an excellent interviewer, the smartest thing Wiggins could do is sit down with Paul for 4-5 hours.....unless he is too scared.

You think that would be smart? Getting interviewed by someone who can ask real questions is going to make Wiggins look like a massive hypocrite.

Much better to keep his mouth shut, or give an interview to a pet journalist like Walsh.

 

[martinvickers]

http://talksport.com/cycling/sir-br...ersey-pride-and-challenging-doping-hypocrites

This interview should drive some folks crazy





I hope Kimmage gets a chance to interview him. Should be interesting

Never, ever going to happen. Mutual trust is zero. Zee-Rho.

Would be a laugh, mind...

 

[SaxonUK]

Why would anyone put themselves in a position of being interviewed by someone who is pretty sure they dope and is unlikely to change their mind.

Also, Wiggins does not interview well, even comments that on paper would look fine seem to come off as either being sarcastic or being a ****er when coming out of his mouth.

 

[Parker]

Which part?

Wiggins comments are silly and his ducking of Kimmage is ridiculous. Kimmage is an excellent interviewer, the smartest thing Wiggins could do is sit down with Paul for 4-5 hours.....unless he is too scared.

4-5 hours? How often does any cyclist do that for any journalist.

Let's not forget that Kimmage isn't a big journalist anymore. He writes for an Irish Sunday paper - not the The Sunday Times. He's really only of importance to certain minor sections of social media (such as this forum) these days. He still has his fans but far more seem to view him as a self-parody now.

There are plenty of journalists who would like 4-5 hours with Wiggins. Ones that actually go to races. Why should he jump ahead of them?

What Sky should do is treat him like all the British journalists and invite him to one of their press days with a promise of 5-10 minutes one-on-one with Wiggins. Kimmage will probably see this as beneath him and turn it down (and if he doesn't film the interview). If he want's more he can work for it like the other journos do.

 

[thehog]

I thought it hilarious. Wiggins consistently manages to out-troll even the worst on here.

And it's well established the two if them don't get on

Jimmy I think we agree. Wiggins is prickly by nature. And he loves to lob in pub talk p1sstakes in everything he says. He does it deadpan which tops it's all off.

The media always have a problem decoding these messages.

Can't wait for Wiggo in Cali. The local press will need their "irony" decoders built into their microphones. They will not understand him.

In another life Wiggo would be hosting Never Mind the Buzzcocks.

Where he lost me was with Lance. He's actually lying there. He still has admiration for him. You can tell.

 

[happychappy]

‘Paul Kimmage: he took drugs, and he was still ****.’

Ouch. Poor old Kimmy is going to need a few more bottles than usual to send him off to sleep after reading that.

 

[The Hitch]

4-5 hours? How often does any cyclist do that for any journalist.

Let's not forget that Kimmage isn't a big journalist anymore. He writes for an Irish Sunday paper - not the The Sunday Times. He's really only of importance to certain minor sections of social media (such as this forum) these days. He still has his fans but far more seem to view him as a self-parody now.

There are plenty of journalists who would like 4-5 hours with Wiggins. Ones that actually go to races. Why should he jump ahead of them?

What Sky should do is treat him like all the British journalists and invite him to one of their press days with a promise of 5-10 minutes one-on-one with Wiggins. Kimmage will probably see this as beneath him and turn it down (and if he doesn't film the interview). If he want's more he can work for it like the other journos do.

He's a parody to most? Funny, didn't most of the message sent to that Irish radio station agrewith kimmage over Walsh when Walsh went on there a few months ago?

But I'm interested where this invisible majority can be found. Where are they on this, the biggest doping forum on the internet. We have jv post here, Betsy post here, Rr posts here, there are 500 different posters to have posted in one of the sky threads in the last 2 years.

And yet you and a handful of others are the only ones who think that about kimmage.

Sounds like bs to me