Kimmage on Wiggins, Sky

[gooner]

So what is the original piece? If you mean Rough Ride - that's from 25 years ago. It exposed Kimmage as a doper. What have we had since that is original?

Kimmage and his friends portray him as a great investigative journalist. So what has he written other than exposing his own doping and repeating Walsh's work.

He has done nothing. Emperor's new clothes.

Digger is his greatest fan. So, Digger, point to his greatest contribution anti-doping (except Landis which was placed on his lap)

Kimmage is a excellent one on one interviewer, even outside of doping related topics as you only have to see his Mick McCarthy interview last week. He holds people to account and is great at follow up questions and if he was to sit down with Wiggins, we'd see this strength that he has as journalist.

I agree with your point, I do think his role in the fall of LA was vastly overrated and his columns and opinions were really based on others like Walsh, Le Monde newspaper in 99, Ressiot and Ballester doing the digging. It's not a criticism but I feel this has to be pointed out as many feel he could be the expose journalist that could be the one to do similar with Sky. Even on Landis, that was a while after he blew it out in the open in May 2010 and if I'm not mistaken it was the Wall Street Journal who got their hands on that. Kimmage might have had one or two snippets that he has maybe done in the sport in the past, but I wouldn't say investigative work is his strong point. So far, I've seen little inkling on his part of doing it with Sky, other than expressing strong suspicion.

 

[peloton]

So what did he ask for? I'm still betting that the editor of this minority website with a meeting point for doping enthusiasts is going to be a little lower on the food chain than the Guardian, for example.

I'm guessing that Benson is thinking he's a bigger player than he really is.

Nice way to insult not just the editor, but the whole community here as well.

The Guardian is the leading cycling news outlet after all...

 

[Granville57]

Even on Landis, that was a while after he blew it out in the open in May 2010 and if I'm not mistaken it was the Wall Street Journal who got their hands on that.

Just for the record:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage

Mon, 01/31/2011 - 12:33pm by Andy Shen

Paul Kimmage interviewed Floyd Landis a few days before Thanksgiving of '10. Their 7 hour conversation was distilled into Kimmage's Sunday Times article published yesterday, meant for a general audience. Kimmage, however, felt that Landis' detailed views on cycling needed to be aired, so he offered us the transcript of their interview. Naturally we accepted. The transcript is presented here in the form Kimmage intended, with no edits from us. We'd like to thank Kimmage and Landis for speaking freely, and note that the opinions within are strictly theirs.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO FLOYD.

An interview with Floyd Landis by Paul Kimmage.

 

[mewmewmew13]

twitter
is this on here upthread? mods please delete as I can only read so far back..

@PaulKimmage: @TeamSky @franmillar Sir Bradley would like to speak to me. Would you mind arranging it please? Anytime, any place.

http://t.co/UDsxnAbP4J



@PaulKimmage: Have just lodged a request to interview Sir Bradley. My thanks to @franmillar and @Rob_Jorgensen

 

[The Hitch]

Not doped.

Until he did.
Armstrong also "not doped". Until he did. As did everyone who doped. they all not doped first. So I don't see the relevance of that one.

Any others?

oops, no, it was the only one on your list.

 

[Digger]

Walsh and wiggins. Wiggins defended himself about what he said re: landis by saying he was caught unawares after a stage at the bus.
In fact he said those words in January. Did Walsh verify? No. Course not.

 

[gooner]

Michelle smith
David Millar whereby Millar was going to sue him. Six weeks layer he was in jail.
Stephen Roche
Cadel Evans
Nadal
Vaughters and Trent Lowe
And on and on

Mcquaid...hein...but what have the Romans ever done for us!!

Kimmage exposed nothing with Smith. He was just outspoken with Walsh, Dunphy and Humphreys.

With Roche, he wrote a column based on La Repubblica who did the work on Conconi. Walsh was the one who went to Italy for a week to get the substance and documentation to it.

I remember he said he asked Nadal about Puerto and he said he got an unsatisfactory answer. I don't think anything was exposed.

The Trent Lowe one is fair enough but on McQuaid and Hein, he again was outspoken and highly critical of them. Hajo Seppelt would have done more work on McQuaid with Contador.

 

[the sceptic]

Until he did.
Armstrong also "not doped". Until he did. As did everyone who doped. they all not doped first. So I don't see the relevance of that one.

Any others?

oops, no, it was the only one on your list.

I believe its at this points youre supposed to ask if he has any evidence or links.

One has to wonder, how does a minority website full of doping enthusiasts attract so many true believers like Parker.

 

[gooner]

Just for the record:

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage

Oh, I know this.

I was referring to May 2010 and I think it was the Wall Street Journal at that time that got the story on Landis coming clean. Later after that Landis did interviews with NBC, Kimmage, Graham Bensinger and so on.

 

[Granville57]

I was referring to May 2010 and I think it was the Wall Street Journal at that time that got the story on Landis coming clean.

Gotcha. My misunderstanding.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006

Notice the authors, the two behind the recently-released Wheelmen.

 

[gooner]

Gotcha. My misunderstanding.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748704911704575326753200584006

Notice the authors, the two behind the recently-released Wheelmen.

OK.

I just looked it up. May 2010:

It's unclear how many emails Mr. Landis sent. Three emails, dated between April 30 and May 6, have been reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Landis copied seven people on these three emails, including officials with USA Cycling and the International Cycling Union. Three people who have seen the emails and spoken to Mr. Landis about them say they are authentic.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703691804575255410855321120

 

[Digger]

Kimmage exposed nothing with Smith. He was just outspoken with Walsh, Dunphy and Humphreys.

With Roche, he wrote a column based on La Repubblica who did the work on Conconi. Walsh was the one who went to Italy for a week to get the substance and documentation to it.

I remember he said he asked Nadal about Puerto and he said he got an unsatisfactory answer. I don't think anything was exposed.

The Trent Lowe one is fair enough but on McQuaid and Hein, he again was outspoken and highly critical of them. Hajo Seppelt would have done more work on McQuaid with Contador.

David Millar.....
He also was the guy who found out about Allen lim...

But other than all that, he's done nothing!
And anyway....Walsh was with sky how long, he didn't even ascertain the tramadol use...didn't ascertain why wiggins' values spiked in 09, accepted without question versions that we know to be inaccurate.

 

[Ferminal]

Oh, I know this.

I was referring to May 2010 and I think it was the Wall Street Journal at that time that got the story on Landis coming clean. Later after that Landis did interviews with NBC, Kimmage, Graham Bensinger and so on.

It was leaked to many sources, iirc.

 

[gooner]

David Millar.....
He also was the guy who found out about Allen lim...

But other than all that, he's done nothing!
And anyway....Walsh was with sky how long, he didn't even ascertain the tramadol use...didn't ascertain why wiggins' values spiked in 09, accepted without question versions that we know to be inaccurate.

I don't deny he may have come across a couple of stories over the years and have already said that. He's a journalist for over 20 years and I'd be amazed if he hadn't. That being said there is a still a lot of myth going around on his work. Lance is the prime example which I have pointed out and you've been found out over-hyping it with many of the names above. I notice you didn't respond to my corrections. Just the other week, I seen on the Irish Independent, they were saying on the back of the O'Driscoll fallout his columns were why Lance took legal action against the Sunday Times.

Being outspoken and investigative is 2 different things. The latter helps us to form better opinions. He's more a brilliant interviewer.

Kimmage told Walsh not to report inside Sky at the start of the year whereby he would be better at doing it from the outside. Hypocritical considering he once was going to do it himself but that's a different matter. I ask if it's better to do it from the outside, what has he achieved? You can try and deflect it to Walsh but since he has been back at work last October, not one column has been written by Kimmage on the topic of questioning Sky. In the same time Walsh has disclosed JTL/passport and written columns criticising Sky for the signing of him along with Rogers. Kimmage has burned a lot of bridges with Sky and with some journalists in the media world, I'm not so sure that is quite the way to go about getting the substance behind a story. Kimmage asked a question during the Tour last summer about Leinders and I remember around here it was the reaction that Kimmage was the only one asking the tough questions. The Leinders topic was covered incessantly the previous year to that and questioned by many journalists, even some of the British ones.

Walsh has deserved criticism(I still think it's OTT) and some of his reasoning doesn't add up but I don't buy either that you have to be "embedded" to still ask questions on tramadol. If Kimmage wanted to do that, he could have easily done so. Jeremy Whittle had no problem in doing it.

 

[Digger]

I don't deny he may have come across a couple of stories over the years and have already said that. He's a journalist for over 20 years and I'd be amazed if he hadn't. That being said there is a still a lot of myth going around on his work. Lance is the prime example which I have pointed out and you've been found out over-hyping it with many of the names above. I notice you didn't respond to my corrections. Just the other week, I seen on the Irish Independent, they were saying on the back of the O'Driscoll fallout his columns were why Lance took legal action against the Sunday Times.

Being outspoken and investigative is 2 different things. The latter helps us to form better opinions. He's more a brilliant interviewer.

Kimmage told Walsh not to report inside Sky at the start of the year whereby he would be better at doing it from the outside. Hypocritical considering he once was going to do it himself but that's a different matter. I ask if it's better to do it from the outside, what has he achieved? You can try and deflect it to Walsh but since he has been back at work last October, not one column has been written by Kimmage on the topic of questioning Sky. In the same time Walsh has disclosed JTL/passport and written columns criticising Sky for the signing of him along with Rogers. Kimmage has burned a lot of bridges with Sky and with some journalists in the media world, I'm not so sure that is quite the way to go about getting the substance behind a story. Kimmage asked a question during the Tour last summer about Leinders and I remember around here it was the reaction that Kimmage was the only one asking the tough questions. The Leinders topic was covered incessantly the previous year to that and questioned by many journalists, even some of the British ones.

Walsh has deserved criticism(I still think it's OTT) and some of his reasoning doesn't add up but I don't buy either that you have to be "embedded" to still ask questions on tramadol. If Kimmage wanted to do that, he could have easily done so. Jeremy Whittle had no problem in doing it.

Firstly who Walsh did good work on Lance - no doubt...did he bust him? No. That was Landis...and only for landis.


Secondly what else has Walsh done? Roche, JTL...He's been on the game far longer than Kimmage. I mean Walsh even defended Kelly after positives, after the pills in the pocket incident and after the PDM affair.

But anyway specify where the criticisms of his work on Sky have been unfair.

Finally specify the journalists Kimmage fell out with...because it's funny you should mention that. Walsh himself has said he doesn't get bothered by other journos because that would mean he respected their work.

 

[pmcg76]

I don't deny he may have come across a couple of stories over the years and have already said that. He's a journalist for over 20 years and I'd be amazed if he hadn't. That being said there is a still a lot of myth going around on his work. Lance is the prime example which I have pointed out and you've been found out over-hyping it with many of the names above. I notice you didn't respond to my corrections. Just the other week, I seen on the Irish Independent, they were saying on the back of the O'Driscoll fallout his columns were why Lance took legal action against the Sunday Times.

Being outspoken and investigative is 2 different things. The latter helps us to form better opinions. He's more a brilliant interviewer.

Kimmage told Walsh not to report inside Sky at the start of the year whereby he would be better at doing it from the outside. Hypocritical considering he once was going to do it himself but that's a different matter. I ask if it's better to do it from the outside, what has he achieved? You can try and deflect it to Walsh but since he has been back at work last October, not one column has been written by Kimmage on the topic of questioning Sky. In the same time Walsh has disclosed JTL/passport and written columns criticising Sky for the signing of him along with Rogers. Kimmage has burned a lot of bridges with Sky and with some journalists in the media world, I'm not so sure that is quite the way to go about getting the substance behind a story. Kimmage asked a question during the Tour last summer about Leinders and I remember around here it was the reaction that Kimmage was the only one asking the tough questions. The Leinders topic was covered incessantly the previous year to that and questioned by many journalists, even some of the British ones.

Walsh has deserved criticism(I still think it's OTT) and some of his reasoning doesn't add up but I don't buy either that you have to be "embedded" to still ask questions on tramadol. If Kimmage wanted to do that, he could have easily done so. Jeremy Whittle had no problem in doing it.

As I have pointed out in the past, Kimmage had access to Garmin and even more access to Dan Martin and he has not discovered anything nefarious or called them out on anything even though people are sure Garmin are doping.

Kimmage has still never ever said that Kelly, Roche or Earley doped. Why has he never called them out when Kelly and Roche are still regarded as heros in Ireland and are used in numerous event's for PR purposes. Surely that must rankle with him.

I will say Kimmage was the first person I seen question Armstrong in 99, well it wasn't that he questioned him, rather he refused to line up to pay adulation like a lot of other journalists. He wrote a piece in Procycling magazine in 99 when he hailed Bassons as his hero of the 99 Tour. I never really seen him call out Armstrong afterward until the comeback in 2009.

A lot of people also misrepresent why Kimmage quit his career saying he was cheated out of the sport when that is patently false. Let's be clear here, Kimmage quit because he couldn't handle being average, he knew even if he took drugs he would still have been average so as he had the option of the career in journalism, he opted for that.

In Rough Ride, he stated plainly that after the Giro in 89, everything was rosy for the first time in his career and that he would have a contract as long as Roche was around. However he decided then he didn't want that and was going to quit at the end of the season before actually quitting at the Tour. Considering Roche took quite a few riders from Fagor to Histor to Tonton Tapis(still sounds bizarre now) Kimmage would have got at least a few more years out of his career.

I respect Kimmage for many things but the way he is hailed by Digger and a few other's here is plainly ridiculous as Kimmage has shown a inconsistent approach to the subject of doping in his jornalistic career. One minute all over it and then might not mention it or get involved for ages. If he were the anti-doping advocate he is made out to be, anti-doping would be his main subject most of the time.

 

[Digger]

As I have pointed out in the past, Kimmage had access to Garmin and even more access to Dan Martin and he has not discovered anything nefarious or called them out on anything even though people are sure Garmin are doping.

Kimmage has still never ever said that Kelly, Roche or Earley doped. Why has he never called them out when Kelly and Roche are still regarded as heros in Ireland and are used in numerous event's for PR purposes. Surely that must rankle with him.

I will say Kimmage was the first person I seen question Armstrong in 99, well it wasn't that he questioned him, rather he refused to line up to pay adulation like a lot of other journalists. He wrote a piece in Procycling magazine in 99 when he hailed Bassons as his hero of the 99 Tour. I never really seen him call out Armstrong afterward until the comeback in 2009.

A lot of people also misrepresent why Kimmage quit his career saying he was cheated out of the sport when that is patently false. Let's be clear here, Kimmage quit because he couldn't handle being average, he knew even if he took drugs he would still have been average so as he had the option of the career in journalism, he opted for that.

In Rough Ride, he stated plainly that after the Giro in 89, everything was rosy for the first time in his career and that he would have a contract as long as Roche was around. However he decided then he didn't want that and was going to quit at the end of the season before actually quitting at the Tour. Considering Roche took quite a few riders from Fagor to Histor to Tonton Tapis(still sounds bizarre now) Kimmage would have got at least a few more years out of his career.

I respect Kimmage for many things but the way he is hailed by Digger and a few other's here is plainly ridiculous as Kimmage has shown a inconsistent approach to the subject of doping in his jornalistic career. One minute all over it and then might not mention it or get involved for ages. If he were the anti-doping advocate he is made out to be, anti-doping would be his main subject most of the time.

Cadel Evans piece from 2010 - pulled by the times...who else questioned him?

David millar - who else questioned him?

Sky, him and about two others. Who else?

So if a paper says to Paul I want you to do a piece on a soccer player, Paul needs to tell them to f*** off that he's doing anti doping work instead...


You see his pieces on Pinotti, Lemond, Andreus,

Also forgetting that Paul was the guy who exposed the Trent lowe issue...and Allen Lim

 

[Digger]

Anyway the original point - Wiggins on Kimmage...last year he said what would people like kimmage do with their lives now that lance is caught...that they were obsessed...then yesterday that he was still sh** eventhough he doped...

Wonder what Wiggins' bff Walsh makes of it

 

[sniper]

fact is, kimmage is about the only guy left with ties to both old and new cycling who's kept his integrity and stayed true to his principles.
he's still around, still involved, and never did a 180 like walsh.
i like paul's credibility.

walsh on the other hand. still hard to grasp how he went from scrutinizing usps/lance from the outside to sweettalking sky from the inside.

 

[Digger]

fact is, kimmage is about the only guy left with ties to both old and new cycling who's kept his integrity and stayed true to his principles.
he's still around, still involved, and never did a 180 like walsh.
i like paul's credibility.

walsh on the other hand. still hard to grasp how he went from scrutinizing usps/lance from the outside to sweettalking sky from the inside.

Walsh went from fan with typewriter to lance back to fan with a typewriter.

 

[The Hitch]

Anyway the original point - Wiggins on Kimmage...last year he said what would people like kimmage do with their lives now that lance is caught...that they were obsessed...then yesterday that he was still sh** eventhough he doped...

Wonder what Wiggins' bff Walsh makes of it

I doubt Walsh knows. There's clearly a.lot Walsh doesn't know. He writes that sky are so anti doping because they pulled out a pic of virenique at the same time that froome is riding with Kelly and wiggo is praising basso and pantani. Brailsford never told him about those things so he probably doesn't know they are happening.

 

[Digger]

I doubt Walsh knows. There's clearly a.lot Walsh doesn't know. He writes that sky are so anti doping because they pulled out a pic of virenique at the same time that froome is riding with Kelly and wiggo is praising basso and pantani. Brailsford never told him about those things so he probably doesn't know they are happening.

And Tom Simpson is used by them as a source of inspiration and Wiggins wrote the foreword to Kelly#s book!!

 

[gooner]

fact is, kimmage is about the only guy left with ties to both old and new cycling who's kept his integrity and stayed true to his principles.
he's still around, still involved, and never did a 180 like walsh.
i like paul's credibility.

He hasn't written once article since the Tour on Sky.

 

[Digger]

He hasn't written once article since the Tour on Sky.

In 2012 in the middle of the wiggins hysteria who was the journo who wrote about his misgivings and reasons for the same? Anyone else do this?

 

[martinvickers]

As I have pointed out in the past, Kimmage had access to Garmin and even more access to Dan Martin and he has not discovered anything nefarious or called them out on anything even though people are sure Garmin are doping.

Kimmage has still never ever said that Kelly, Roche or Earley doped. Why has he never called them out when Kelly and Roche are still regarded as heros in Ireland and are used in numerous event's for PR purposes. Surely that must rankle with him.

I will say Kimmage was the first person I seen question Armstrong in 99, well it wasn't that he questioned him, rather he refused to line up to pay adulation like a lot of other journalists. He wrote a piece in Procycling magazine in 99 when he hailed Bassons as his hero of the 99 Tour. I never really seen him call out Armstrong afterward until the comeback in 2009.

A lot of people also misrepresent why Kimmage quit his career saying he was cheated out of the sport when that is patently false. Let's be clear here, Kimmage quit because he couldn't handle being average, he knew even if he took drugs he would still have been average so as he had the option of the career in journalism, he opted for that.

In Rough Ride, he stated plainly that after the Giro in 89, everything was rosy for the first time in his career and that he would have a contract as long as Roche was around. However he decided then he didn't want that and was going to quit at the end of the season before actually quitting at the Tour. Considering Roche took quite a few riders from Fagor to Histor to Tonton Tapis(still sounds bizarre now) Kimmage would have got at least a few more years out of his career.

I respect Kimmage for many things but the way he is hailed by Digger and a few other's here is plainly ridiculous as Kimmage has shown a inconsistent approach to the subject of doping in his jornalistic career. One minute all over it and then might not mention it or get involved for ages. If he were the anti-doping advocate he is made out to be, anti-doping would be his main subject most of the time.

I think Kimmage has called out Roche and Kelly, though it was clearly Walsh who took the public flack on Roche - see famous Late, Late.

Kimmage gets some stuff wrong, but and his manner is sometimes needlessly abrasive, but he's one of the good guys. Please, in all seriousness, don't blame Kimmage for the faults of people like Digger, it's not fair on him, or the work he's done.