Paul Kimmage questioning Roman ?

[Dr. Maserati]

I said Kreuziger has questions to answer and so does Gasporotto and any other rider linked with Ferrari in the past. I have no problem with Kimmage flagging this up. In fact I hope he continues to do so. I do have a problem with him bringing Roche into all this. That's the issue I have here. I think we should agree to disagree on that.

And Kimmage has done more than enough for the sport. I contributed to his fund in recognition of that and have no regrets in doing so.

Hold on.
Kimmage didn't bring Roche in to it. Nico did himself when he tweeted his congrats. All Kimmage did was respond with a tweet saying maybe he could explain that in his next column.

And exactly whay race did Nico Roche dope and deprive Kimmage of? The problem is simple, paul seems to be taking out his anger about roche sr on his son. And on some fundamental level, thats just not on. Have a go at stephen, no probs, deserves it. But this type of proxy attack is just low frankly.

I contributed to the kimmsge fund several times. I wrote to each board member before the mcquaid renomination. Im with paul on the big stuff. But this petty vindictive stuff is not paul's best side, and much more important it undermines the fight against dope and corruption, because it allows others to write off psuls views on mcquaid as part of the same old family fueds. And for what? Does nico care? Its this kinda stuff makes me despair of getting things done...

It has nothing to do with Roche snr - if it was PK would be at Dan martin too.

Nico writes a column and has publicly come out in support of, on one hand clean cycling, on the other supporting dopers, and the McQuaids.
It doesn't add up, and it is quite correct that it is highlighted and questioned.

 

[elduggo]

Hold on.
Kimmage didn't bring Roche in to it. Nico did himself when he tweeted his congrats. All Kimmage did was respond with a tweet saying maybe he could explain that in his next column.


It has nothing to do with Roche snr - if it was PK would be at Dan martin too.

Nico writes a column and has publicly come out in support of, on one hand clean cycling, on the other supporting dopers, and the McQuaids.
It doesn't add up, and it is quite correct that it is highlighted and questioned.

Dan Martin has a column too and you could quite easily twist things, were one inclined to, to say he has also come out in support of dopers and of clean cycling.

But why would you? If you bore no personal grudge against him like.

 

[gooner]

Hold on.
Kimmage didn't bring Roche in to it. Nico did himself when he tweeted his congrats. All Kimmage did was respond with a tweet saying maybe he could explain that in his next column.

What has Kreuziger's past links with Ferrari at Liquigas got to do with Roche? I still haven't got an answer for that. Kreuziger is accountable to that, not Roche. Kimmage was the one who brought Roche into it in the context of all this.

Karsten Kroon and many other teammates also congratulated Kreuziger on twitter. Why didn't Kimmage bring them into it? It was nice selective picking on Kimmage's part.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Dan Martin has a column too and you could quite easily twist things, were one inclined to, to say he has also come out in support of dopers and of clean cycling.

But why would you? If you bore no personal grudge against him like.

Dan is Roche Snrs nephew. If Kimmage bore a personal grudge then surely the nasty Kimmage would indeed 'twist' things and Dan would get hit too.

Has Dan come out in support of the McQuaids in his column?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

What has Kreuziger's past links with Ferrari at Liquigas got to do with Roche? I still haven't got an answer for that. Kreuziger is accountable to that, not Roche. Kimmage was the one who brought Roche into it in the context of all this.

Karsten Kroon and many other teammates also congratulated Kreuziger on twitter. Why didn't Kimmage bring them into it? It was nice selective picking on Kimmage's part.

Kreuziger's past has nothing to do with Roche.

Roches tweet congratulating Kreuziger who has past links with Ferrari has everything to do with Roche.
Does Kroon write columns about McQuaid or go on Irish radio to support them? That's what Nico has done - Kimmage asked how does one reconcile Nicos anti-doping agenda when he then congratulates publicly a Ferrari client.

 

[gooner]

It has nothing to do with Roche snr - if it was PK would be at Dan martin too.

Nico writes a column and has publicly come out in support of, on one hand clean cycling, on the other supporting dopers, and the McQuaids.
It doesn't add up, and it is quite correct that it is highlighted and questioned.

I haven't see too much anti-doping stuff from Dan Martin or Phillip Deignan in their columns in the past. Dan Martin did talk briefly about Di Gregorio in the Tour last year but really it was just a diary of the ongoing racing. That's why they get signed on in the first place by national newspapers. With regards to Deignan, Kimmage praised his ride earlier in the year at the Algarve and I can't ever remember Kimmage criticising him for being a teammate of Lance, or riding for Bruyneel in the past.

I have no problem with the criticism of Roche with regards to the McQuaid because he is directly responsible for what he says here. But Roche isn't directly responsible one bit for the past link of Kreuziger and Ferrari especially as they had no connection whatsoever as they were on separate teams.
































































































+

 

[gooner]

Hold on.
Kimmage didn't bring Roche in to it. Nico did himself when he tweeted his congrats. All Kimmage did was respond with a tweet saying maybe he could explain that in his next column.


It has nothing to do with Roche snr - if it was PK would be at Dan martin too.

Nico writes a column and has publicly come out in support of, on one hand clean cycling, on the other supporting dopers, and the McQuaids.
It doesn't add up, and it is quite correct that it is highlighted and questioned.

I haven't see too much anti-doping stuff from Dan Martin or Phillip Deignan in their columns in the past. Dan Martin did talk briefly about Di Gregorio in the Tour last year but really it was just a diary of the ongoing racing. That's why they get signed on in the first place by national newspapers. With regards to Deignan, Kimmage praised his ride earlier in the year at the Algarve and I can't ever remember Kimmage criticising him for being a teammate of Lance, or riding for Bruyneel in the past.

I have no problem with the criticism of Roche with regards to the McQuaid because he is directly responsible for what he says here. But Roche isn't directly responsible one bit for the past link of Kreuziger and Ferrari especially as they had no connection whatsoever as they were on separate teams. As a teammate who rode with him yesterday for his win, he is entitled to congratulate afterwards.

 

[elduggo]

Has Dan come out in support of the McQuaids in his column?

thats a pretty selective question in light of what I said.

hence, I shan't waste any more energy. Here I bow out.

slan leat

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

&#8207]

If only Roman was anglo and his DS was feeding you stories about Lance...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I haven't see too much anti-doping stuff from Dan Martin or Phillip Deignan in their columns in the past. Dan Martin did talk briefly about Di Gregorio in the Tour last year but really it was just a diary of the ongoing racing. That's why they get signed on in the first place by national newspapers. With regards to Deignan, Kimmage praised his ride earlier in the year at the Algarve and I can't ever remember Kimmage criticising him for being a teammate of Lance, or riding for Bruyneel in the past.

I have no problem with the criticism of Roche with regards to the McQuaid because he is directly responsible for what he says here. But Roche isn't directly responsible one bit for the past link of Kreuziger and Ferrari especially as they had no connection whatsoever as they were on separate teams.

This is where your point goes off the rails. Kimmage never said anything about Roche being directly responsible, or even PK condemning or slating or whatever, Roche.

Here is the Kimmage tweet:
Hey @nicholasroche would you mind asking Roman about this please? It would make a good column. podiumcafe.com/2012/10/12/349…

And Kimmage also sent Kreuziger a tweet:
Hey @Roman86_K Very impressive today but reserving the right to applaud until you clarify this podiumcafe.com/2012/10/12/349…

 

[heart_attack_man]

Perhaps this tweet MAY shed some light on the latest...

Paul Kimmage ‏@PaulKimmage 13 Apr
Raced and loved both Kelly and Roche. Don't care if I never speak to them again. Hope to speak to @TTworldchamp soon. Respect.


Caveat: I am a huge fan of Kimmage. I also am not sure it's right to go after a son for a grudge with a father, however I suspect that after reading Paul's twitter feed during/after the Ireland Cycling Federation announcement, I thought he was going to have a total meltdown.

 

[gooner]

Kreuziger's past has nothing to do with Roche.

Roches tweet congratulating Kreuziger who has past links with Ferrari has everything to do with Roche.
Does Kroon write columns about McQuaid or go on Irish radio to support them? That's what Nico has done - Kimmage asked how does one reconcile Nicos anti-doping agenda when he then congratulates publicly a Ferrari client.

This is all about the tweet yesterday and Kimmage taking issue with his congratulations of Kreuziger's win and the context in which way he took it. If he had a problem with that, then Kroon and other Saxo riders should of been brought into the equation. Whether these riders have columns or not, it shouldn't be an issue if Kimmage finds serious faults with it and so therefore he should be consistent in bringing them into it as well.

 

[gooner]

This is where your point goes off the rails. Kimmage never said anything about Roche being directly responsible, or even PK condemning or slating or whatever, Roche.

Here is the Kimmage tweet:
Hey @nicholasroche would you mind asking Roman about this please? It would make a good column. podiumcafe.com/2012/10/12/349…

And Kimmage also sent Kreuziger a tweet:
Hey @Roman86_K Very impressive today but reserving the right to applaud until you clarify this podiumcafe.com/2012/10/12/349…

And why does he ask Roche to go ask him about it? It has NOTHING got to do with Roche so Kimmage should of sent that tweet directly to Kreuziger without mentioning Roche in the process. Only the second time did he do after mentioning Roche in the first tweet for some reason.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

thats a pretty selective question in light of what I said.

hence, I shan't waste any more energy. Here I bow out.

slan leat

Due to the fact you selectively quoted a small part of my response i believe you may be bowing out for more than lack of fitness.

 

[gooner]

This is where your point goes off the rails. Kimmage never said anything about Roche being directly responsible, or even PK condemning or slating or whatever, Roche.

Here is the Kimmage tweet:
Hey @nicholasroche would you mind asking Roman about this please? It would make a good column. podiumcafe.com/2012/10/12/349…

And Kimmage also sent Kreuziger a tweet:
Hey @Roman86_K Very impressive today but reserving the right to applaud until you clarify this podiumcafe.com/2012/10/12/349…

I have no problem with Kimmage sending that tweet directly to Kreuziger. But why does he have to mention Roche in the preceeding tweet in all this before directly sending off the following one to Kreuziger?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

This is all about the tweet yesterday and Kimmage taking issue with his congratulations of Kreuziger's win and the context in which way he took it. If he had a problem with that, then Kroon and other Saxo riders should of been brought into the equation. Whether these riders have columns or not, it shouldn't be an issue if Kimmage finds serious faults with it and so therefore he should be consistent in bringing them into it as well.

It stems from Roches tweet, but you are making stuff up to say it "all about" the tweet.
No tweet from Roche, no reply from Kimmage - simple.
But once Roche tweets he exposes himself to how he reconciles Kreuzigers past with his public anti-doping stance.
It is the apparent hypocrisy PK is asking to be addressed - which as there isn't that with Kroon et al means they are irrelevant.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have no problem with Kimmage sending that tweet directly to Kreuziger. But why does he have to mention Roche in the preceeding tweet in all this before directly sending off the following one to Kreuziger?

Not only do I not know why Kimmage decided to tweet who first - I also do not care and can see no reason to ever care. Why don't yo tweet him?

But he had retweeted Nicos tweet before he sent his tweet to Nico.

 

[enrecul]

Bloody tweeting. Have they ever heard of telephones? ;-)

 

[gooner]

It stems from Roches tweet, but you are making stuff up to say it "all about" the tweet.
No tweet from Roche, no reply from Kimmage - simple.
But once Roche tweets he exposes himself to how he reconciles Kreuzigers past with his public anti-doping stance.
It is the apparent hypocrisy PK is asking to be addressed - which as there isn't that with Kroon et al means they are irrelevant.

OK. You won't admit it was selective picking on Kimmage's part. If Kimmage has a problem with a rider congratulating his teammate due to past links with Ferrari, then he should've had a problem with all Saxo riders in the process, not one.

Not only do I not know why Kimmage decided to tweet who first - I also do not care and can see no reason to ever care. Why don't yo tweet him?

But he had retweeted Nicos tweet before he sent his tweet to Nico.

Which meant it was primarily all about taking issue with Roche more than Kreuziger. All this was directed first to Roche before Kimmage fired off on Kreuziger.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Bloody tweeting. Have they ever heard of telephones? ;-)

Lol! This. Tweets are the new arguing in the street, you want to make sure everyone hears when perhaps it should be said in private.

It can be handy when following a race you can't watch however

 

[Basecase]

OK. You won't admit it was selective picking on Kimmage's part. If Kimmage has a problem with a rider congratulating his teammate due to past links with Ferrari, then he should've had a problem with all Saxo riders in the process, not one.



Which meant it was primarily all about taking issue with Roche more than Kreuziger. All this was directed first to Roche before Kimmage fired off on Kreuziger.

Gooner, what's your problem with an Irish journalist holding an Irish pro to account? Get over it will ya! Good on PK I say.

Down with the "cycling has moved on brigade" - only time will prove that, until then, in the absence of clear and apparent change in the UCI, the jury is out.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

OK. You won't admit it was selective picking on Kimmage's part. If Kimmage has a problem with a rider congratulating his teammate due to past links with Ferrari, then he should've had a problem with all Saxo riders in the process, not one.

Why would I agree to your selective stuff? Kimmage was selective, but not for the reasons you offer.

I don't think Kimmage has a problem with one rider congratulating another - but I think he was quite right to ask someone who supports clean cycling about the apparent contradiction of congratulating a Ferrari client.

Which meant it was primarily all about taking issue with Roche more than Kreuziger. All this was directed first to Roche before Kimmage fired off on Kreuziger.

It was.
So?
Kreuziger went to Ferrrari -that's on him, Roche congratulated a Ferrari client, that's on Roche.

 

[gooner]

Gooner, what's your problem with an Irish journalist holding an Irish pro to account? Get over it will ya! Good on PK I say.

Down with the "cycling has moved on brigade" - only time will prove that, until then, in the absence of clear and apparent change in the UCI, the jury is out.

I don't care that Kimmage or Roche are Irish. That has nothing got to do with the issue in hand here. I would still have my say on this if there were of any other nationality.

To call out Kreuziger on his past and then to bring Roche into it, is something I am not having when Roche had no connection to Kreuziger whatsoever at the time.

 

[Basecase]

I don't care that Kimmage or Roche are Irish. That has nothing got to do with the issue in hand here. I would still have my say on this if there were of any other nationality.

To call out Kreuziger on his past and then to bring Roche into it, is something I am not having when Roche had no connection to Kreuziger whatsoever at the time.

I do care that they are Irish and Irish media should be holding Irish riders to account. If all countries had media with same standard as PK, how much healthier would the sport be?

"Something you are not having" - who are you? The internet thought police! Seems you have a problem with people having opinions! Be careful, the internet is full of them!

 

[gooner]

I don't think Kimmage has a problem with one rider congratulating another - but I think he was quite right to ask someone who supports clean cycling about the apparent contradiction of congratulating a Ferrari client.

Yet Kimmage congratulated and celebrated Roche's World's win when he was a teammate himself. And I am sure he congratulated a known doper in Kelly after many of his great wins. If he thinks it's so easy to criticise why didn't he do it himself at the time when he was still an active rider.