Paul Kimmage questioning Roman ?

[GJB123]

Someone brought up Deignan earlier in the thread.
He did join RadioShack. I believe it was spun as joined Bruyneel &Lance, even though they probably never saw each other.

Key difference again is, did Deignan ever tweet congratulations about JB or LA?

To the highlighted, for you perhaps, but not for a lot of others. And again if we go searching I bet we can find something. I don't do twitter and have no clue how you go about searching its content effectively and yet within half an hour I can find a tweet where Pinotti thanks Ballan for helping him get a silver TTT medal.

You are reading way too much in what is just common courtesy between team mates.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think in this case you can at least question the motives for PK asking only Roche.

https://twitter.com/marcopinotti/status/247574156089118720

As we can see Pinotti thanked Ballan for helping him win a silver TTT medal at the world championships. Should he really be thanking someone like Ballan, with his history? And where was PK asking Pinotti the pertinent question he is asking Roche?

I hugely respect PK, I donated to his fund and would willingly do so again when needed. He has done a lot of good for cycling by being who he is, but that doesn't mean I cannot or should not question his motives and just assume they are always noble and for the best of cycling and never ever have anything to to with some personal animosity.

All good and valid questions. And that's why I am asking about Pinotti and others.

I am not sure if you are making a conclusion with the "personal animosity' but I certainly don't see that. PK has been consistent in it, has he asked every person who tweets congrats to a (perhaps) doper rider? Nope - but anyone he has asked he asks the same type of questions.
And remember he did interview Nico, and if anything it was pretty soft.

 

[pmcg76]

Someone brought up Deignan earlier in the thread.
He did join RadioShack. I believe it was spun as joined Bruyneel &Lance, even though they probably never saw each other.

Key difference again is, did Deignan ever tweet congratulations about JB or LA?

AFAIK Deignan didn't do twitter but Kimmage never seemed too bothered that he joined USPS revamped which you would think would really bother someone like Kimmage. I know it bothered me when he went there, was happy to see him move on.

In the grand scheme of things, a rider joining up with USPS-mark 2 should be more worthy of comment that a rider congratulating a team-mate on victory.

Nice also that you ignore the fact that Kimmage has never piled on Kelly for never talking about doping when he is commentating. Where is the consistency?? or do these thing's only apply when it's a member of the Roche family.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I don't believe you're being serious about degrees of congratulation here...

That's a (wrong) conclusion you are drawing.
Breath in, breath out - I was genuinely seeking to find similar examples.

And yes he did:

Thanks.

 

[del1962]

You are wrong. Firstly at least I am on the money about what I write. Secondly my opinion is better that yours.

That Avatar you use on twitter, that is the legbreaker isn't it?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

To the highlighted, for you perhaps, but not for a lot of others. And again if we go searching I bet we can find something. I don't do twitter and have no clue how you go about searching its content effectively and yet within half an hour I can find a tweet where Pinotti thanks Ballan for helping him get a silver TTT medal.

For me yes absolutely.
Do you seriously think I give a rats a$s about anyone else's position?

You are reading way too much in what is just common courtesy between team mates.

Hold on.
You are very wrong here.

The 2 issues (which for me are not related) - should Roche explain his tweet? I think it would be good. (And I am not assuming his answer)
Should PK have sent his tweet to NR? Yip. (Should he do the same to others? Yes)

 

[LaFlorecita]

The 2 issues (which for me are not related) - should Roche explain his tweet? I think it would be good. (And I am not assuming his answer)
Should PK have sent his tweet to NR? Yip. (Should he do the same to others? Yes)

Why the ****. Should he explain that tweet? He's just congratulating his teammate

 

[Dr. Maserati]

AFAIK Deignan didn't do twitter but Kimmage never seemed too bothered that he joined USPS revamped which you would think would really bother someone like Kimmage. I know it bothered me when he went there, was happy to see him move on.

In the grand scheme of things, a rider joining up with USPS-mark 2 should be more worthy of comment that a rider congratulating a team-mate on victory.

Deignan was on twitter, he then went silent - not sure when but I think it was before RS.

The highlighted - you are assuming something because Kimmage hasn't said anything (either way) publicaly. That's on you.

And I believe you agree, but just because a rider joins a dodgy team does not mean they dope.

Nice also that you ignore the fact that Kimmage has never piled on Kelly for never talking about doping when he is commentating. Where is the consistency?? or do these thing's only apply when it's a member of the Roche family.

What?????
I ignored something you just introduced from nowhere?

And Kimmage has said that Kelly says nothing, which he finds less hypocritical than others who talk about clean cycling.

 

[martinvickers]

The 2 issues (which for me are not related) - should Roche explain his tweet? I think it would be good. (And I am not assuming his answer)

Athlete congratulates teammate on success.

What explanation does that require?

Should PK have sent his tweet to NR? Yip. (Should he do the same to others? Yes)

Yip? Why Yip?

So let's get this straight.

Tweet A

Cyclist congratulates teammate on new team on winning big race.

Tweet B

Journalist tweets cyclist whose father he has an ongoing feud with, and who he has criticised himself, despite no known history of that cyclist doping, telling him to quiz his own new teammate on doping allegations predating said cyclist's tenure on the team, and tells him to write column about it in a tone that at very best can be described as sarcastic.

And you argue tweet A is the one that begs questions.

Very good. Carry on....

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Athlete congratulates teammate on success.

What explanation does that require?


Yip? Why Yip?

So let's get this straight.

Tweet A

Cyclist congratulates teammate on new team on winning big race.

Tweet B

Journalist tweets cyclist whose father he has an ongoing feud with, and who he has criticised himself, despite no known history of that cyclist doping, telling him to quiz his own new teammate on doping allegations predating said cyclist's tenure on the team, and tells him to write column about it in a tone that at very best can be described as sarcastic.

And you argue tweet A is the one that begs questions.

Very good. Carry on....

That's the way you see it - here is my take.


Clean athlete congratulates teammate who is Ferrari client on his success.
Ya, that does require an explanation.

Tweet B

Journalist with long record of asking awkward doping questions tweets original tweeter info about the Ferrari client, says it could make a good column for cyclists column in paper.


Roche fans, Sky fans, USPS fans, Contador fans etc unite in outrage and horror.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Athlete congratulates teammate on success.

What explanation does that require?


Yip? Why Yip?

So let's get this straight.

Tweet A

Cyclist congratulates teammate on new team on winning big race.

Tweet B

Journalist tweets cyclist whose father he has an ongoing feud with, and who he has criticised himself, despite no known history of that cyclist doping, telling him to quiz his own new teammate on doping allegations predating said cyclist's tenure on the team, and tells him to write column about it in a tone that at very best can be described as sarcastic.

And you argue tweet A is the one that begs questions.

Very good. Carry on....

That's the way you see it - here is my take.


Clean athlete congratulates teammate who is Ferrari client on his success.
Ya, that does require an explanation.

Tweet B

Journalist with long record of asking awkward doping questions tweets original tweeter info about the Ferrari client, says it could make a good column for cyclists column in paper.


Roche fans, Sky fans, USPS fans, Contador fans etc unite in outrage and horror.

 

[pmcg76]

Deignan was on twitter, he then went silent - not sure when but I think it was before RS.

The highlighted - you are assuming something because Kimmage hasn't said anything (either way) publicaly. That's on you.

And I believe you agree, but just because a rider joins a dodgy team does not mean they dope.


What?????
I ignored something you just introduced from nowhere?

And Kimmage has said that Kelly says nothing, which he finds less hypocritical than others who talk about clean cycling.

Who do you think I was talking about when I mentioned the owner of the An Post team who commentates on television??? Maybe you need to brush up on your reading skills.

The highlighted is the crux of this matter, PK is tweeting Roche about questioning a team-mate in public but never said anything in public about another Irish rider joining USPS-deux. Why not?? If you can provide some evidence of Kimmage doing so, then bring it.

There is clearly a double-standard going on there, did Kimmage say anything in public about Deignan asking Lance, Bruyneel, Leipheimer, Kloeden etc, etc what they got up to. It shouldn't require a tweet to spark Kimmage into action and an Irish rider joining RadioShack should have provoked a big response from Kimmage considering he was so opposed to that whole group.

This looks far more like an anti-Roche thing as part of the aminosity between Roche snr and Kimmage.

 

[pmcg76]

That's the way you see it - here is my take.


Clean athlete congratulates teammate who is Ferrari client on his success.
Ya, that does require an explanation.

Tweet B

Journalist with long record of asking awkward doping questions tweets original tweeter info about the Ferrari client, says it could make a good column for cyclists column in paper.


Roche fans, Sky fans, USPS fans, Contador fans etc unite in outrage and horror.

But cycling journalist with long record of asking doping questions didn't publically ask questions about another Irish rider joining up with Radioshack but has had a long running feud with father of Irish rider he did challenge.

Where is the consistency???

 

[martinvickers]

That's the way you see it - here is my take.


Clean athlete congratulates teammate who is Ferrari client on his success.
Ya, that does require an explanation.

Tweet B

Journalist with long record of asking awkward doping questions tweets original tweeter info about the Ferrari client, says it could make a good column for cyclists column in paper.


Roche fans, Sky fans, USPS fans, Contador fans etc unite in outrage and horror.

Because Journalist is so naive, despite having been in the peleton himself, and writing a seminal book which made him for many years unfairly a pariah, as well as the enemy of cyclist's dad, that he believes cyclist will derive nothing but benefit from taking advice, and writing critical newspaper column on the historical doping allegations against his new teammate. You know, rather than said Naive journalist just do it himself, that being, well, his job description.

I'm sorry, but you're "innocent paul" take on tweet B requires a level of naivité on behalf of Paul Kimmage that borders on mental disfunction. And neither of us believe Paul is naive. Not a bit.


But either Paul is a naive, innocent fool whose first thought, despite said naivity, is to ask Nico to do his job for him (your take) in genuine belief Nico will write said column regardless of risk to his new contract, OR that tweet was basically a dig at Nico, for something there's no evidence Nico himself ever did - whether that something that annoys Paul was done by K himself, or by Stephen Roche.

As I said, if you want to play silly beggers in order to explain away Paul's tweet, it's up to you. I'm sure you like your credibility.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Who do you think I was talking about when I mentioned the owner of the An Post team who commentates on television??? Maybe you need to brush up on your reading skills.

The highlighted is the crux of this matter, PK is tweeting Roche about questioning a team-mate in public but never said anything in public about another Irish rider joining USPS-deux. Why not?? If you can provide some evidence of Kimmage doing so, then bring it.

There is clearly a double-standard going on there, did Kimmage say anything in public about Deignan asking Lance, Bruyneel, Leipheimer, Kloeden etc, etc what they got up to. It shouldn't require a tweet to spark Kimmage into action and an Irish rider joining RadioShack should have provoked a big response from Kimmage considering he was so opposed to that whole group.

This looks far more like an anti-Roche thing as part of the aminosity between Roche snr and Kimmage.

I misread the Kelly part - although you did bring up commentating in the second post, and PK has said that at least Kelly is not a hypocrite.

You are on about a double standard - there isn't.
Did Deignan go and write pieces in any media talking about clean cycling and then praise either JB or LA or go on radio defending McQ?

And Kimmage didn't join twitter until late 2012 when Deignan was almost gone form RS. So that proves nothing.

 

[Benotti69]

So what does this mean:

I thought it meant: "if Roche wants clean cycling he should try to get rid of Roman because he is a doper"

It means if Roche is in favour of a clean peloton he should do his best to help that, i.e. he writes a newspaper column where he has influence. Use that influence to question riders with connections to doctors as part of being in the pro peloton. Otherwise he is part of the omerta.

 

[Benotti69]

So why should Roche ask Roman about it? "Hey Roman, I was just wondering, were you really a client of Dr Ferrari?" And then write about it in his column yea seems nice to screw your teammate like that

Or " Hey Roman, did you win AGR with the help of Ferarri, way to go to screw your sport Roman!"

BS about team mates in cycling. Riders dont get long contracts to make it a truly team sport. Teams dont care much for riders either.

 

[martinvickers]

It means if Roche is in favour of a clean peloton he should do his best to help that, i.e. he writes a newspaper column where he has influence. Use that influence to question riders with connections to doctors as part of being in the pro peloton. Otherwise he is part of the omerta.

What influence? He writes a general column. What influence does it have?

 

[Benotti69]

In the name of consistency, can you find something similar Kimmage might have said publically when Philip Deignan joined Radioshack or all the times he lambased the An Post boys for riding on a team owned by a doper Kimmage knows very well, but never mentions the fact that said former rider never talks about doping when he is commentating.

I mean if Kimmage is that consistent, it should be easy.

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

 

[pmcg76]

I misread the Kelly part - although you did bring up commentating in the second post, and PK has said that at least Kelly is not a hypocrite.

You are on about a double standard - there isn't.
Did Deignan go and write pieces in any media talking about clean cycling and then praise either JB or LA or go on radio defending McQ?

And Kimmage didn't join twitter until late 2012 when Deignan was almost gone form RS. So that proves nothing.

I would say joining a notorious doping team with doping legend and Kimmage enemy No 1 should raise more questions than a guy congratulating a team-mate who might have been working with Dr Ferrari a few years back.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Because Journalist is so naive, despite having been in the peleton himself, and writing a seminal book which made him for many years unfairly a pariah, as well as the enemy of cyclist's dad, that he believes cyclist will derive nothing but benefit from taking advice, and writing critical newspaper column on the historical doping allegations against his new teammate. You know, rather than said Naive journalist just do it himself, that being, well, his job description.

I'm sorry, but you're "innocent paul" take on tweet B requires a level of naivité on behalf of Paul Kimmage that borders on mental disfunction. And neither of us believe Paul is naive. Not a bit.


But either Paul is a naive, innocent fool whose first thought, despite said naivity, is to ask Nico to do his job for him (your take) in genuine belief Nico will write said column regardless of risk to his new contract, OR that tweet was basically a dig at Nico, for something there's no evidence Nico himself ever did - whether that something that annoys Paul was done by K himself, or by Stephen Roche.

As I said, if you want to play silly beggers in order to explain away Paul's tweet, it's up to you. I'm sure you like your credibility.

I will burn through the straw here and say that Kimmages tweet was not naive - it was done for a purpose. To see the reaction from NR and see if he is consistent on what he has said elsewhere.

You are the one who is quick to defend Nico - which seems an unusual thing to do if you have faith that he is clean.
That is why I see nothing wrong with questioning Nico or anyone else, and I will draw my own conclusions from what NR does.

 

[Benotti69]

Yes, you're right. A teammate has questions to answer about his past link to Ferrari, not Roche though.

So Roche should ride with the omerta?

I said Kreuziger and all riders with previous associations to Ferrari have questions to answer for. I hope they get exposed. I don't have any disagreement with you there.

As if a newspaper would print the rant after rant.

Plenty of people ranting in papers. Look at what Thatcher's death caused some people in the papers to write.

His opinion is no better than yours or mine.

Digger is a twitter God.

I agree Roche has been evasive on this but to think he is going to slag off his own father and his links to McQuaid is frankly absurd, even if he was clean.

Not expecting him to slag it off, but i do expect him to get criticised for being on that side of the fence. When he is in that camp i dont believe in Nico Roche

Again, would you question Kreuziger in Roche's position? Like hell you would and the same applies to Kimmage as well.

I would have been a Scott Mercier. Turned my back on the sport and done something else. Kimmage has proven himself higher than most by consistently calling out those who keep the sport in the gutter. Nico Roche could help but he wont step out from the influence of his Father and the McQuaids. So call him on it. Doing that does more than effect Nico, he is getting at his Father and the McQuaids who are all part of the problem. Nico is also part of the problem in cycling and not the solution. F**k him.

Kimmage would not get an interview from 99.9% of the sport. We all know that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I would say joining a notorious doping team with doping legend and Kimmage enemy No 1 should raise more questions than a guy congratulating a team-mate who might have been working with Dr Ferrari a few years back.

There are always questions.
But why would you say that? Why?

Do you believe it?
I don't think you do - you know Deignans story, Cervelo dropped out late in the season and PD was amongst those scrambling for a contract.

 

[martinvickers]

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

Wait, so it's writing for a paper that matters?

Does Wiggins write for a paper?

 

[blackcat]

wedged NR.

double bind.