Paul Kimmage questioning Roman ?

[Benotti69]

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

Are you so naive to think that papers dont have influence? Are you really a beak?

Hell even forums, twitter and blogs have influence on how people think and act.

If Nico Roche had balls and wrote about Pat McQuaid being the wrong man for the job maybe others would have thought differently and voted differently, maybe.


Who knows which straw will break the camels back.

 

[gooner]

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.

And alienate himself with a year and half to go on his contract. That might seem short to you but for him in this scenario it would feel a lot longer to endure in the coming time afterwards.

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

Since when was a newspaper column the only way a rider could make an anti-doping statement. Roche is signed on to write about his experiences on the road not to satisfy Paul Kimmage's needs or yours for that matter.

I am awesome - trust me. And you are lucky i am bothering to reply to you.

Thanks for the reply. I feel honoured.

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?

And look what Deignan hhas to say about Bruyneel.

“When you look at how many Tour de Frances he has won with Lance, which was seven, and then with Contador, it was like talking to the Alex Ferguson or Jose Murhino of the cycling world.

http://www.irishprocycling.com/news/deignan/deignan-talks-about-future-radioshack

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.

Kimmage was an active journalist when Deignan was still at RadioShack so he could of easily taking issue on this if he wanted to.

 

[LaFlorecita]

WTF I am completely lost. I don't have a clue how benotti and Dr Maserati can think a cyclist congratulating another cyclist on a win requires an explanation. I feel like I have an IQ of below zero. I seriously don't understand you two.

 

[martinvickers]

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.

Trolling, then. Right, that's gonna help Kimmage.

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.

Hold on. It is UNUSUAL to defend a rider you think is clean from his detractors? So you wouldn't defend, say, Lemond?

Yep. Good one.

That is why I see nothing wrong with questioning Nico or anyone else, and I will draw my own conclusions from what NR does.

Hey, i'm quite happy for Kimmage to question Nico. Investigate him too, it's all gravy.

But he didn't do that. He told Nico to question K, about what K did years ago, when N had no connection to him.

And not because he actually wanted or expected it to happen. No, just to make Nico feel awkward, to 'put him on the spot'. To 'watch the reaction'.

I.e. It was a dig. As we've said all along. A dig as others have shown he has not made at other more obvious candidates, both foreign and domestic. A dig at a rider with no known history of doping. 24 hours after venting his (perfectly understandable) contempt for the boys father.

But you don't visit the sins of the father on the son. That's just sh!t behavious, and I repeat, it belittles Paul. The usual suspects in here may continue to worsphip, and that's fine, who am i to interfere with freedom of religion. But in the wider frame it feeds into a narrative that is going to undermine Kimmage. And some people here seem happy for that to happen so long as they get to watch fireworks.

Excellent. Good luck with the show.

 

[martinvickers]

Are you so naive to think that papers dont have influence? Are you really a beak?

Hell even forums, twitter and blogs have influence on how people think and act.

If Nico Roche had balls and wrote about Pat McQuaid being the wrong man for the job maybe others would have thought differently and voted differently, maybe.


Who knows which straw will break the camels back.

Jaysus, you are naive about the irish if you believe this.

 

[Benotti69]

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

No, Kimmage called out a newspaper columnist and one who isnt. There is a difference but that is not what matters.

How do you know Kimmage has not talked to all the other Irish cyclist in person? How do you know he hasn't questioned them about their links and teams and where it fits into clean cycling?

 

[Benotti69]

Jaysus, you are naive about the irish if you believe this.

Betsy Andreu convinced Anto Moran to vote against McQuaid. Who is naive then?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

And alienate himself with a year and half to go on his contract. That might seem short to you but for him in this scenario it would feel a lot longer to endure in the coming time afterwards.



Since when was a newspaper column the only way a rider could make an anti-doping statement. Roche is signed on to write about his experiences on the road not to satisfy Paul Kimmage's needs or yours for that matter.



Thanks for the reply. I feel honoured.



And look what Deignan hhas to say about Bruyneel.



http://www.irishprocycling.com/news/deignan/deignan-talks-about-future-radioshack

Did you read the piece? Deignan had not even met JB.
And I wouldn't expect a hard piece when the opening line calls Bruyneel legendary

Kimmage was an active journalist when Deignan was still at RadioShack so he could of easily taking issue on this if he wanted to.

Yes, active journalist for the Sunday Times, who would be the ones to tell PK what they wanted.

And just to be clear - do you want Kimmage asking people the tough questions?

 

[gooner]

Did you read the piece? Deignan had not even met JB.
And I wouldn't expect a hard piece when the opening line calls Bruyneel legendary.

I remember seeing Bruyneel on TV in the car at the Giro in 2011 so what's your point.

You and Kimmage have a problem with Roche congratulating Kreuziger but why didn't Kimmage go off on one with regards to what Deignan said when it's the same if not arguably even worse than what Roche said. Yet this is the same Deignan he has no problem in praising for his good ride in Algarve this year.

Yes, active journalist for the Sunday Times, who would be the ones to tell PK what they wanted.

So what would of stopped Kimmage from saying it on Newstalk when he would of also been speaking about Lance many times. It never stopped him from mentioning Roche on it or on Setanta Ireland when he said he wanted Roche to have a column writing about McQuaid and Lance and all that. That time he wasn't even asked about Roche but it was specifically all about his Landis piece which was being published on the Sunday Times that week coming.

And just to be clear - do you want Kimmage asking people the tough questions?

Yes, of course. I never said I had an issue with the questioning of Kreuziger by Kimmage.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Trolling, then. Right, that's gonna help Kimmage.



Hold on. It is UNUSUAL to defend a rider you think is clean from his detractors? So you wouldn't defend, say, Lemond?

Yep. Good one.

LeMond reference, drink.

It's interesting that you see Kimmages question as from his detractors.
I believe in LeMond, but I didn't have a meltdown when that nasty Kimmage asked him lots of hard questions.
In fact I welcome it.

Hey, i'm quite happy for Kimmage to question Nico. Investigate him too, it's all gravy.

But he didn't do that. He told Nico to question K, about what K did years ago, when N had no connection to him.

And not because he actually wanted or expected it to happen. No, just to make Nico feel awkward, to 'put him on the spot'. To 'watch the reaction'.

I.e. It was a dig. As we've said all along. A dig as others have shown he has not made at other more obvious candidates, both foreign and domestic. A dig at a rider with no known history of doping. 24 hours after venting his (perfectly understandable) contempt for the boys father.

But you don't visit the sins of the father on the son. That's just sh!t behavious, and I repeat, it belittles Paul. The usual suspects in here may continue to worsphip, and that's fine, who am i to interfere with freedom of religion. But in the wider frame it feeds into a narrative that is going to undermine Kimmage. And some people here seem happy for that to happen so long as they get to watch fireworks.

Excellent. Good luck with the show.

Wow.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I remember seeing Bruyneel on TV in the car at the Giro in 2011 so what's your point.

Good for you.

You and Kimmage have a problem with Roche congratulating Kreuziger but why didn't Kimmage go off on one with regards to what Deignan said when it's the same if not arguably even worse than what Roche said. Yet this is the same Deignan he has no problem in praising for his good ride in Algarve this year.

I don't have a problem with it.
But I do find it a curious thing for a guy who has spoken about clean cycling to do. I see no problem in him being asked about it.

I don't have any problem with Nico, in fact I like him - I do have a problem with some of his fans though.

I
So what would of stopped Kimmage from saying it on Newstalk when he would of also been speaking about Lance many times. It never stopped him from mentioning Roche on it or on Setanta Ireland when he said he wanted Roche to have a column writing about McQuaid and Lance and all that. That time he wasn't even asked about Roche but it was specifically all about his Landis piece which was being published on the Sunday Times that week coming.

Did Deignan have a column? No.

Yes, of course. I never said I had an issue with the questioning of Kreuziger by Kimmage.

Interesting deflection.

 

[Benotti69]

Hey, i'm quite happy for Kimmage to question Nico. Investigate him too, it's all gravy.

But he didn't do that. He told Nico to question K, about what K did years ago, when N had no connection to him.

When did Ferarri stop working and when did Kreuiger stop working with him?

And not because he actually wanted or expected it to happen. No, just to make Nico feel awkward, to 'put him on the spot'. To 'watch the reaction'.

I.e. It was a dig. As we've said all along. A dig as others have shown he has not made at other more obvious candidates, both foreign and domestic. A dig at a rider with no known history of doping. 24 hours after venting his (perfectly understandable) contempt for the boys father.

But you don't visit the sins of the father on the son. That's just sh!t behavious, and I repeat, it belittles Paul. The usual suspects in here may continue to worsphip, and that's fine, who am i to interfere with freedom of religion. But in the wider frame it feeds into a narrative that is going to undermine Kimmage. And some people here seem happy for that to happen so long as they get to watch fireworks.

Nico has no history but is closely connected to people who doped and enable doping. I wonder what Pat McQuaid does for riders on Andrew's books Introducitons to lab directors maybe......

Kimmage will have not have blotted his copy book. His detractors are those who look for cracks in the armour.

 

[martinvickers]

LeMond reference, drink.

It's interesting that you see Kimmages question as from his detractors.
I believe in LeMond, but I didn't have a meltdown when that nasty Kimmage asked him lots of hard questions.
In fact I welcome it.



Wow.

Why wow? Some in here want to treat Paul as if he were inerrant, incapable of error. That's not reasonable, its a faith position. I think Paul is one man. A good man, trying to do good. But fallable and with flaws, just like the rest of us. And sometimes, he let's things get the better of him, to the detriment of the bigger picture.

Now you tell me, where's the wow in that?

 

[Benotti69]

Why wow? Some in here want to treat Paul as if he were inerrant, incapable of error. That's not reasonable, its a faith position. I think Paul is one man. A good man, trying to do good. But fallable and with flaws, just like the rest of us. And sometimes, he let's things get the better of him, to the detriment of the bigger picture.

Now you tell me, where's the wow in that?

Few treat Kimmage as a god. Especially when Kimmage admits to his faults and flaws. He aditted he got it wrong on Kohl during the TdF where KohL won a MTF then got popped.

 

[martinvickers]

When did Ferarri stop working and when did Kreuiger stop working with him?

no idea. Why not ask him, instead of playing silly beggers with nico?

Nico has no history but is closely connected to people who doped and enable doping. I wonder what Pat McQuaid does for riders on Andrew's books Introducitons to lab directors maybe......

Kimmage will have not have blotted his copy book. His detractors are those who look for cracks in the armour.

Have you evidence of nico having tests 'mislaid' for andrew. Or is this just a lazy smear, as usual?

 

[martinvickers]

Few treat Kimmage as a god. Especially when Kimmage admits to his faults and flaws. He aditted he got it wrong on Kohl during the TdF where KohL won a MTF then got popped.

Funny how that error is the one the faithful always mention...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Why wow? Some in here want to treat Paul as if he were inerrant, incapable of error. That's not reasonable, its a faith position. I think Paul is one man. A good man, trying to do good. But fallable and with flaws, just like the rest of us. And sometimes, he let's things get the better of him, to the detriment of the bigger picture.

Now you tell me, where's the wow in that?

Ah, all of it.

Care to name the "some in here"? Of course you won't.
That is a load of nonsense you just made up.

 

[martinvickers]

Ah, all of it.

Care to name the "some in here"? Of course you won't.
That is a load of nonsense you just made up.

Name some? Happily. The people defnding his stupid bloody tweet in this thread for starters.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Name some? Happily. The people defnding his stupid bloody tweet in this thread for starters.

That's not naming people.
That is just a scattergun approach to bait and troll.

 

[martinvickers]

That's not naming people.
That is just a scattergun approach to bait and troll.

Fine, for starters Maserato and Benotti

Happier?

P.s. Benotti just declared his 'faith'. Good on him.

Qed

 

[Benotti69]

no idea. Why not ask him, instead of playing silly beggers with nico?

Yeah, silly beggar is gonna talk to Kimmage.

Have you evidence of nico having tests 'mislaid' for andrew. Or is this just a lazy smear, as usual?

Worked for Armstrong, but hey that's different isn't it.

Show me where the sport changed since Armstrong was peddling....

 

[Benotti69]

Funny how that error is the one the faithful always mention...

I would rather have faith in Kimmage than a Roche or a McQauid

 

[martinvickers]

Yeah, silly beggar is gonna talk to Kimmage.



Worked for Armstrong, but hey that's different isn't it.

Show me where the sport changed since Armstrong was peddling....

Oh, but he'll spill all to Nico?

Yeah, convincing.

Oh, and now the Godwins law of the Clinic....yawn. stay on topic

 

[martinvickers]

I would rather have faith in Kimmage than a Roche or a McQauid

Fine. Your church is your business.

I prefer evidence to faith in anyone. I dont much believe in faith in mere mortals. Any of them.

 

[Benotti69]

Oh, but he'll spill all to Nico?

Yeah, convincing.

You missed the intention of Kimmage's tweet.

Why defend those on the side of omerta who are all enemies of a clean sport?