Paul Kimmage questioning Roman ?

[martinvickers]

Wow, thanks.

I sincerely appreciate that and with all due respect as much as you have introduced some valid points to consider I am quite happy to disagree.
But like all things, nothing is set in stone so appreciate any and all posts.

No problem.

If you had any idea how angry I am right now at Cycling Ireland.

I suppose I don't want Kimmage to look hard, or clever. I just want him to win.

 

[martinvickers]

I'm gonna' go all Hugh Januss here: Get a room.

You wanna hug to Chewie?

 

[ChewbaccaD]

You wanna hug to Chewie?

Nah, I wanna' full-on cuddle.

 

[martinvickers]

Nah, I wanna' full-on cuddle.

Well, come here, you big hairy oaf!

 

[Benotti69]

Beaks are magistrates. Try to get the slang right.

You posting your judgement on Kimmage's tweets, I think I got the slang right

 

[skippy]

Seems like Roman has gone " SHY " about his connections !

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...alk-about-links-to-banned-doctor-ferrari.html

Wonder how long he can dodge the subject ?

 

[gooner]

Just for the record since it's all about Roche having a column. Deignan also had one for The Star in the past and I can't ever remember him being taken to task by Kimmage.

 

[gooner]

Did Deignan have a column? No.

When Deignan starts writing for a paper, i expect we will see Kimmage do similar and ask him to explain his time at Radioshack for the readers

Just for the record since it's all about Roche having a column. Deignan also had one for The Star in the past and I can't ever remember him being taken to task by Kimmage.

 

[Benotti69]

Just for the record since it's all about Roche having a column. Deignan also had one for The Star in the past and I can't ever remember him being taken to task by Kimmage.

Just for the record, Kimmage answered your questions on twitter.

Kimmage was asked light night at 'Whistleblowers' which Irish cyclist in the last 30 years did he think was clean, he replied he didn't know.

 

[gooner]

Just for the record, Kimmage answered your questions on twitter.

Kimmage was asked light night at 'Whistleblowers' which Irish cyclist in the last 30 years did he think was clean, he replied he didn't know.

Just for the record, he didn't.

Kimmage said Pinotti was the only rider he thought had a true anti-doping stance. When I brought Pinotti into it, he said he was different to Roche because he didn't have a newspaper column and Roche rode for Contador and Riis. I pointed out Pinotti had a blog on CN and rode with Evans(link to Ferrari) and for Lelangue and Ochowicz. I could have even brought Ballan into of I wanted.Yet all I got from Kimmage was that he does indeed have an anti-doping stance and that's that.

He didn't answer my questions, far from it. I just reactivated my account so everyone can see for themselves if they wish. He never addressed the questions about Deignan and Dan Martin also having columns. He ended the conversation. Obviously didn't like my questions. Even tried to deflect on to me at one point.

 

[skippy]

Would this be Paul's way of answering some of the recent criticism ?

" Paul Kimmage ‏@PaulKimmage 23m
It's been a while since I jumped out of my chair watching a bike race. Congrats to @DanMartin86 on a magnicent win.

Well , for me it was a pleasure to watch Dan , just disappointed that Ryder was unable to hold off the pursuit , at 7km with 20 secs , i was unaware there was a climb coming , which all but ruined his day ?

Congrats to JV , now off to look at that thread !

 

[LaFlorecita]

Would this be Paul's way of answering some of the recent criticism ?

" Paul Kimmage ‏@PaulKimmage 23m
It's been a while since I jumped out of my chair watching a bike race. Congrats to @DanMartin86 on a magnicent win.

Well , for me it was a pleasure to watch Dan , just disappointed that Ryder was unable to hold off the pursuit , at 7km with 20 secs , i was unaware there was a climb coming , which all but ruined his day ?

Congrats to JV , now off to look at that thread !

Nothing dodgy about Dan Martin I guess? Ugh that Kimmage really annoys me.

 

[Benotti69]

Just for the record, he didn't.

Kimmage said Pinotti was the only rider he thought had a true anti-doping stance. When I brought Pinotti into it, he said he was different to Roche because he didn't have a newspaper column and Roche rode for Contador and Riis. I pointed out Pinotti had a blog on CN and rode with Evans(link to Ferrari) and for Lelangue and Ochowicz. I could have even brought Ballan into of I wanted.Yet all I got from Kimmage was that he does indeed have an anti-doping stance and that's that.

He didn't answer my questions, far from it. I just reactivated my account so everyone can see for themselves if they wish. He never addressed the questions about Deignan and Dan Martin also having columns. He ended the conversation. Obviously didn't like my questions. Even tried to deflect on to me at one point.

The answer to your question was this

@PaulKimmage

@gooner_irl He does indeed have an anti-doping stance. He doesn't have a newspaper column and hasn't endorsed McQuaid.

Kimmage was having a go a Nico Roche for endorsing McQuaid as head of UCI. IIRC he did it last year on Irish national radio, 'Off the Ball'.

You could've asked him in person last night.

 

[roundabout]

Nothing dodgy about Dan Martin I guess? Ugh that Kimmage really annoys me.

You are seriously going to compare Dan with a guy who is 1st one week and 125th the next?

 

[gooner]

The answer to your question was this



Kimmage was having a go a Nico Roche for endorsing McQuaid as head of UCI. IIRC he did it last year on Irish national radio, 'Off the Ball'.

You could've asked him in person last night.

He had a go at Roche on Setanta Ireland when he was being interviewed about his Landis interview being published in the Sunday Times that week and talked about Roche even when he wasn't asked about him and wanted him to write a column on all this. Why not Dan Martin or Deignan? Deignan had a column in The Star.

I never heard Dan Martin or Phillip Deignan say anything either about McQuaid. Andrew McQuaid represented Deignan in getting his move to RadioShack and Kimmage doesn't seem to say anything about that.

“Why is Marco Pinotti the only cyclist in the professional peloton with that back bone to stand up and address these issues? He’s the only one out of all of them with the courage; nobody else does.”

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...n-Wiggins-and-Team-Sky-over-transparency.aspx

Yet Kimmage has no problem with him riding for Lelangue, Ochowicz and Ballan but told me he does with Roche for Riis, Contador and Kreuziger. And he then says but Pinotti doesn't have a column. Pinotti has written blogs for CN and I pointed this out to him and he still wouldn't address it.

And why didn't he answer my questions about Dan Martin and Phillip Deignan who also had columns?

@PaulKimmage Dan Martin had a column in the Irish Times last year and now Procycling. Why not him, why always Nico?

@PaulKimmage You said you've a problem with Nico riding for Riis and Contador. Why not Deignan who rode for Bruyneel and Lance?

@PaulKimmage And why didn't you bring in other Saxo riders who congratulated Kreuziger on twitter. IMO you were being selective on purpose.

@PaulKimmage And don't forget Deignan also had a column in the Irish Star. Why didn't you say anything about him?

 

[Benotti69]

H

And why didn't he answer my questions about Dan Martin and Phillip Deignan who also had columns?

Why didn't you go and ask him last night and ask him?. The was a Q&A session.

 

[gooner]

Why didn't you go and ask him last night and ask him?. The was a Q&A session.

I had better things to be doing.

A simple couple of tweets could have been sufficient but he chose not to, even though he was happy to answer me at first.

I still notice you won't admit Kimmage has been shown to be inconsistent with judging Roche and Pinotti on all this.

 

[Benotti69]

I had better things to be doing.

It seems to be important to you, but not that important.

A simple couple of tweets could have been sufficient but he chose not to, even though he was happy to answer me at first.

I still notice you won't admit Kimmage has been shown to be inconsistent with judging Roche and Pinotti on all this.

I think the difference between Roche and Pinotti is Roche endorsed McQuaid.

Dont see going after Roche becuase of that as inconcistent.

But lets shoot one of the most important anti doping journos out there for a tweet.

The only consistency in this sport is doping.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

You are seriously going to compare Dan with a guy who is 1st one week and 125th the next?

I don't get your point? He rode for Niki today.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I had better things to be doing.

A simple couple of tweets could have been sufficient but he chose not to, even though he was happy to answer me at first.

I still notice you won't admit Kimmage has been shown to be inconsistent with judging Roche and Pinotti on all this.

The only one inconsistent is you.
Both write articles, both ride for teams with a dubious past (present).

One has a strong anti-doping past - the other flip flops.

 

[gooner]

The only one inconsistent is you.
Both write articles, both ride for teams with a dubious past (present).

One has a strong anti-doping past - the other flip flops.

No it's you.

You said you had a problem with Nico congratulating Kreuziger, yet there wasn't anything like the same uproar from you when another poster pointed out Pinotti did the exact same thing with Ballan even after you asked for that to be showed.

You then specifically asked for quotes/tweets where Deignan praised LA or Bruyneel. I showed you that and then you said it's different because Deignan doesn't write a column. I told you he had a column in The Star and you still didn't take him to task like you did with Nico.

Fell free to respond if you wish but I've said my bit on all this. You know where I stand, I don't need to explain myself anymore.

 

[GJB123]

No it's you.

You said you had a problem with Nico congratulating Kreuziger, yet there wasn't anything like the same uproar from you when another poster pointed out Pinotti did the exact same thing with Ballan even after you asked for that to be showed.

You then specifically asked for quotes/tweets where Deignan praised LA or Bruyneel. I showed you that and then you said it's different because Deignan doesn't write a column. I told you he had a column in The Star and you still didn't take him to task like you did with Nico.

Fell free to respond if you wish but I've said my bit on all this. You know where I stand, I don't need to explain myself anymore.

This post is right on the money and it would make the good doctor look a whole lot better if he he admits that.

Dr. Mas, you always make a point of people being consistent and people backing up their claims by facts and rightly so. Now it has been shown in this case that Kimmage hasn't been consistent in calling out Irish riders, all of a sudden you evade questions on Pinotti and Deignan. You even now state that it isn't about Roche being clean or having to call out possible dopers in his current team but that it is all about not being vocal about McQuaid. Why then didn't Kimmage ask Roche to denounce McQuaid rather than castigating him for the common courtesy of congratulating one's team mate on a win. This is not like you.

Now I don't expect such rationality from Benotti who has made it abundantly clear that he won't agree with anyone or anything if it nuances the perception that doping is still as bad as it was in the 90's and 00's and really doesn't care or doesn't believe you can win clean nowadays (whereas Kimmage does seem to hold that belief). I have however come to expect such rationality from you. Please don't disappoint me.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No it's you.

You said you had a problem with Nico congratulating Kreuziger, yet there wasn't anything like the same uproar from you when another poster pointed out Pinotti did the exact same thing with Ballan even after you asked for that to be showed.

Which is exactly why I asked about Pinotti.
I wanted to see if there was something similar from someone else.

There is no "uproar" except in your head.
I am curious to find out how Nico congratulates a Ferrari client while maintaining an anti doping stance.
That's it, that's all.
Should the same questions be asked of others? Of course. And Kimmage has done that with every rider he has interviewed.

You then specifically asked for quotes/tweets where Deignan praised LA or Bruyneel. I showed you that and then you said it's different because Deignan doesn't write a column. I told you he had a column in The Star and you still didn't take him to task like you did with Nico.

Fell free to respond if you wish but I've said my bit on all this. You know where I stand, I don't need to explain myself anymore.

Deignan commented before, yes before he had ever met JB.
No idea about his column. (You read The Star?) Did he address doping?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This post is right on the money and it would make the good doctor look a whole lot better if he he admits that.

Dr. Mas, you always make a point of people being consistent and people backing up their claims by facts and rightly so. Now it has been shown in this case that Kimmage hasn't been consistent in calling out Irish riders, all of a sudden you evade questions on Pinotti and Deignan. You even now state that it isn't about Roche being clean or having to call out possible dopers in his current team but that it is all about not being vocal about McQuaid. Why then didn't Kimmage ask Roche to denounce McQuaid rather than castigating him for the common courtesy of congratulating one's team mate on a win. This is not like you.

Now I don't expect such rationality from Benotti who has made it abundantly clear that he won't agree with anyone or anything if it nuances the perception that doping is still as bad as it was in the 90's and 00's and really doesn't care or doesn't believe you can win clean nowadays (whereas Kimmage does seem to hold that belief). I have however come to expect such rationality from you. Please don't disappoint me.

The highlighted is a strawman.
Kimmage should not just be addressing people because of nationality, or any other bias.
And he doesn't. Anyone he interviews gets the same treatment.

Who are the 2 people who he has questioned or critiqued since? Wiggins & Roche, why. Because what they say in one place often contradicts what they do.
That should be questioned. Anything else is people's own conclusions, which is why I reserve my own opinion until or if Nico addresses it.

 

[GJB123]

Which is exactly why I asked about Pinotti.
I wanted to see if there was something similar from someone else.

There is no "uproar" except in your head.
I am curious to find out how Nico congratulates a Ferrari client while maintaining an anti doping stance.
That's it, that's all.
Should the same questions be asked of others? Of course. And Kimmage has done that with every rider he has interviewed.


Deignan commented before, yes before he had ever met JB.
No idea about his column. (You read The Star?) Did he address doping?

Can you show me where he did that for Pinotti, Deignan or Martin? We showed you, now you show us.