Paul Kimmage questioning Roman ?

[martinvickers]

You missed the intention of Kimmage's tweet.

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

No. I didn't miss the intention. That's the point...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Fine, for starters Maserato and Benotti

Happier?

No, not at all happy.
Why would I be happy when someone just made up something that is completely false.

You have some cheek, but then again, it's all you have.

 

[martinvickers]

No, not at all happy.
Why would I be happy when someone just made up something that is completely false.

You have some cheek, but then again, it's all you have.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. Like arses, everybody has one.

If you had defended kimmage generally, I'd have no complaint. You didn't. You tried, completely unconvincingly, to defend that one stupid tweet, rather than admit maybe Paul f@cked up this once. That wasn't realistic. It was a 'faith' driven position...Defend paul at all times, regardless. Typical of the faithful, I suppose ( see benotti).

But I repeat it does paul no favours in the big picture. Just reinforces stupid feud narritives. Sometimes I widh people who 'defend' paul actually tried to help him instead...but I'll be a long time waiting for that ability to step back and see the big picture...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion. Like arses, everybody has one.

If you had defended kimmage generally, I'd have no complaint. You didn't. You tried, completely unconvincingly, to defend that one stupid tweet, rather than admit maybe Paul f@cked up this once. That wasn't realistic. It was a 'faith' driven position...Defend paul at all times, regardless. Typical of the faithful, I suppose ( see benotti).

But I repeat it does paul no favours in the big picture. Just reinforces stupid feud narritives. Sometimes I widh people who 'defend' paul actually tried to help him instead...but I'll be a long time waiting for that ability to step back and see the big picture...

Mine is not an opinion. Mine is fact.

You just made up a load of yak and are now trying to justify it.
Quite disgraceful.

 

[Benotti69]

But I repeat it does paul no favours in the big picture. Just reinforces stupid feud narritives. Sometimes I widh people who 'defend' paul actually tried to help him instead...but I'll be a long time waiting for that ability to step back and see the big picture...

Big favours? What ****ing big favours? McQuaid got renominated. Cycling is not going to clean itself up. The majority are happy to dope or be convinced it is pat of the sport. People like Kimmage will always be a minority, why becuase he doesn't do politics.

Big picture is the sport dopes, always has and always will. Why? becuase the majority of the riders are sheep. Most riders are looking at Hincapie, Valverde and others who got caught and are still rich. They ignore those that died or got popped and not rehired. There in no big picture for a clean sport. The new big picture is the same as the old big picture.

 

[gooner]

Good for you.

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.

Such a false assumption. You did it a few pages back with another false generalisation saying everyone taking aim at Kimmage is a Roche fan. I like Nico too but I don't get too bogged down in his success or failure on the road. That has nothing got to do with the topic of this thread and you are making too many assumptions with one side of the argument here.

Interesting deflection.

No deflection from me but you seem to be doing your best tabloid work here twisting my words. I have addressed this issue at hand and my stance on this topic is clear for everyone to see. Kimmage is right to question Kreuziger or any rider with previous associations to Ferrari. And if Roche has anything along those lines coming out against him in the future Kimmage should also hit out at him. Your twisting of my words is roughly the same what Kimmage done yesterday. Roche congratulated his teammate with reference specifically to yesterday's race and Kimmage with his adding of arms and legs said it was support of a Ferrari client. Do you honestly think Roche tweeted that in the very context that Kimmage referred to? No he didn't and Kimmage knows that very well too. He's no fool. He knew what he was doing and knows as well Roche wouldn't write a column questioning Kreuziger when he is a current teammate.

If anyone is playing the politician, it's you I'm afraid. You haven't even responded adequately to the Deignan article and his love in with Bruyneel. Yet you questioned specifically for tweets/quotes referring to any congratulatory/praise from Deignan to Bruyneel or Armstrong. Now why hasn't Kimmage referred to that? This very Kimmage was the one who praised his ride in the Algarve this year.

 

[martinvickers]

Mine is not an opinion. Mine is fact.

You just made up a load of yak and are now trying to justify it.
Quite disgraceful.

Fine, dr. Put me on ignore. But dont kid yourself. You tried to play silly beggers over that bloody tweet. Noones fault but your own if that 'hurt your credibility'.

 

[martinvickers]

Big favours? What ****ing big favours? McQuaid got renominated. Cycling is not going to clean itself up. The majority are happy to dope or be convinced it is pat of the sport. People like Kimmage will always be a minority, why becuase he doesn't do politics.

Big picture is the sport dopes, always has and always will. Why? becuase the majority of the riders are sheep. Most riders are looking at Hincapie, Valverde and others who got caught and are still rich. They ignore those that died or got popped and not rehired. There in no big picture for a clean sport. The new big picture is the same as the old big picture.

So if thats your faith, why are you wasting your time here?

 

[Benotti69]

So if thats your faith, why are you wasting your time here?

I have not declared my faith. Do you beaks always try and put words in people's mouths?

My time is my own and I spend it how I please.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Fine, dr. Put me on ignore. But dont kid yourself. You tried to play silly beggers over that bloody tweet. Noones fault but your own if that 'hurt your credibility'.

I have no intention of putting you on ignore.
Was that your aim?

Some friendly advice, I would avoid using the word credibility when you have just been caught making stuff up. Go back to talking about imaginary feuds and LeMond.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Such a false assumption. You did it a few pages back with another false generalisation saying everyone taking aim at Kimmage is a Roche fan. I like Nico too but I don't get too bogged down in his success or failure on the road. That has nothing got to do with the topic of this thread and you are making too many assumptions with one side of the argument here.

What?
I made a sarcastic comment in response to someone and I included all the other 'fans' of various groups that PK has upset.

And to the blue - you appear to know my assumptions, please state them.

No deflection from me but you seem to be doing your best tabloid work here twisting my words.


I have addressed this issue at hand and my stance on this topic is clear for everyone to see. Kimmage is right to question Kreuziger or any rider with previous associations to Ferrari. And if Roche has anything along those lines coming out against him in the future Kimmage should also hit out at him. Your twisting of my words is roughly the same what Kimmage done yesterday. Roche congratulated his teammate with reference specifically to yesterday's race and Kimmage with his adding of arms and legs said it was support of a Ferrari client. Do you honestly think Roche tweeted that in the very context that Kimmage referred to? No he didn't and Kimmage knows that very well too. He's no fool. He knew what he was doing and knows as well Roche wouldn't write a column questioning Kreuziger when he is a current teammate.

If anyone is playing the politician, it's you I'm afraid. You haven't even responded adequately to the Deignan article and his love in with Bruyneel. Yet you questioned specifically for tweets/quotes referring to any congratulatory/praise from Deignan to Bruyneel or Armstrong. Now why hasn't Kimmage referred to that? This very Kimmage was the one who praised his ride in the Algarve this year.

You accuse me of being a politician and twisting your words and then put up something irrelevant.
Should Kimmage ask Roche tough questions? A yes or no will be fine so you cannot accuse me of twisting your words

 

[Digger]

Fine, for starters Maserato and Benotti

Happier?

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

Qed

add me to that list - i think you and gooner are talking absolute twaddle...

And as the thread has progressed, your position has become more ridiculous and tenuous, yet you hang in there...good luck with that.

 

[gooner]

add me to that list - i think you and gooner are talking absolute twaddle...

And as the thread has progressed, your position has become more ridiculous and tenuous, yet you hang in there...good luck with that.

No surprise you want on that list with your unconditional love of PK or that you ridicule someone's opinion in the terminology you post above since that's what you always do when someone's opinion doesn't fit in with your own agenda and thinking.

 

[pmcg76]

add me to that list - i think you and gooner are talking absolute twaddle...

And as the thread has progressed, your position has become more ridiculous and tenuous, yet you hang in there...good luck with that.

Frankly no more ridiculous than the arguments from the other side.

How ironic that Benotti drags Andrew McQuaid into this as the agent of Nico Roche when he is also the agent of Deignan and indeed has links with most Irish riders, indeed it would be hard to find a facet of Irish cycling not somehow involving a McQuaid such has been their involvement in Irish cycling.

I hate even dragging Deignan into this debate as it has very little to do with him and I have a lot of faith in him as an honest rider, Radioshack or not. I just cannot see how Kimmage could let that pass without comment and then slam on certain other riders. I think it is just very transparent that Kimmage likes to have digs at Roche Jnr but as part of his bitterness towards Roche senior which is unfair.

If he applied the same sort of challenges to all Irish riders in public view, I would understand but he doesn't so the question is why not? Why is it that Roche is signaled out, just because he writes a newspaper column!!! Dan Martin has a column in ProCycling, would describe himself as a clean rider but is no more voluble in terms of calling out dopers than Roche is and there are plenty of riders with history at Garmin. Does he get any grief from Kimmage???

How can Kimmage really expect someone to write about doping links to a current team-mate when he was not capable of doing it himself when he was an active pro and things were more out in the open in terms of knowing what team-mates got up to. Now he is expecting articles on possible links and unconfirmed rumours from a few years ago.

Like others, I have a lot of respect for Kimmage and what he has done but like others have said, he is not infallible either.

 

[martinvickers]

I have not declared my faith. Do you beaks always try and put words in people's mouths?

My time is my own and I spend it how I please.

Beaks are magistrates. Try to get the slang right.

 

[martinvickers]

I have no intention of putting you on ignore.
Was that your aim?

Some friendly advice, I would avoid using the word credibility when you have just been caught making stuff up. Go back to talking about imaginary feuds and LeMond.

You're not a friend. And I don't need advice on credibility from you.

 

[martinvickers]

add me to that list - i think you and gooner are talking absolute twaddle...

And as the thread has progressed, your position has become more ridiculous and tenuous, yet you hang in there...good luck with that.

Sorry, you are?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Frankly no more ridiculous than the arguments from the other side.

How ironic that Benotti drags Andrew McQuaid into this as the agent of Nico Roche when he is also the agent of Deignan and indeed has links with most Irish riders, indeed it would be hard to find a facet of Irish cycling not somehow involving a McQuaid such has been their involvement in Irish cycling.

I hate even dragging Deignan into this debate as it has very little to do with him and I have a lot of faith in him as an honest rider, Radioshack or not. I just cannot see how Kimmage could let that pass without comment and then slam on certain other riders. I think it is just very transparent that Kimmage likes to have digs at Roche Jnr but as part of his bitterness towards Roche senior which is unfair.

If he applied the same sort of challenges to all Irish riders in public view, I would understand but he doesn't so the question is why not? Why is it that Roche is signaled out, just because he writes a newspaper column!!! Dan Martin has a column in ProCycling, would describe himself as a clean rider but is no more voluble in terms of calling out dopers than Roche is and there are plenty of riders with history at Garmin. Does he get any grief from Kimmage???

How can Kimmage really expect someone to write about doping links to a current team-mate when he was not capable of doing it himself when he was an active pro and things were more out in the open in terms of knowing what team-mates got up to. Now he is expecting articles on possible links and unconfirmed rumours from a few years ago.

Like others, I have a lot of respect for Kimmage and what he has done but like others have said, he is not infallible either.

Overall this is a good and fair post.

To the highlighted - no one said PK is infallible. And his tweet should be discussed.

But again the idea that it is motivated by any bitterness to Roche Snr dissolves when you mention Dan Martin. If the theory is that PK is motivated by the Roche clan than Dan should be part of it to.
He isn't - and I think you would acknowledge that Dan & Nicos statements and history is different.

A better example is someone else who makes comments that appear odd or contradictory like Wiggins. PK does the exact same there.

 

[martinvickers]

But again the idea that it is motivated by any bitterness to Roche Snr dissolves when you mention Dan Martin. If the theory is that PK is motivated by the Roche clan than Dan should be part of it to.

But 'tis not "the roche clan" - it's just Roche Sr - Roche Jr is just a conduit. And the father-son relationship is rather different from a nephew growing up in another country. Surely you can see that?

 

[Dr. Maserati]

But 'tis not "the roche clan" - it's just Roche Sr - Roche Jr is just a conduit. And the father-son relationship is rather different from a nephew growing up in another country. Surely you can see that?

Firstly, while I am not objecting, it is quite noticeable that you cut out the prts of my post that required an answer or showed other examples to go back to your pet theory.

But to address your point;
So, PK is not after the Roche clan, just Roche Snr. Ok.
Oh wait, he is after the son too. But it stops there because the nephew was residing in another country - even though Nico spent a lot of his time abroad too.

Quite simply, no I don't see it.

 

[martinvickers]

Firstly, while I am not objecting, it is quite noticeable that you cut out the prts of my post that required an answer or showed other examples to go back to your pet theory.

But to address your point;
So, PK is not after the Roche clan, just Roche Snr. Ok.
Oh wait, he is after the son too. But it stops there because the nephew was residing in another country - even though Nico spent a lot of his time abroad too.

Quite simply, no I don't see it.

I repeat, conduit. Con-du-it.

look it up, Dr.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I repeat, conduit. Con-du-it.

look it up, Dr.

Ok.
I wil check the online dictionary.

con·duit (knd-t, -dt)
n.
1. A pipe or channel for conveying fluids, such as water.
2. A tube or duct for enclosing electric wires or cable.
3. A means by which something is transmitted: an arms dealer who served as a conduit for intelligence data.
4. Archaic A fountain.

No, I am pretty sure that Roche Jnr is not any type of fountain.

 

[martinvickers]

I repeat, conduit. Con-du-it.

look it up, Dr.

I have been reminded by she who must be obeyed that I am letting my frustration at the situation get the better of me, too. As I said, we're all flawed.

I will have to continue to respectfully disagree with you, Dr. I don't blame Paul for being ****ed off at the world, and the irish cycling world in particular (aren't we all!), but I still think that tweet was ill advised and a bit of a low blow.

But I realise I have been a little overly aggressive in making my point. It was not my intention to begin an argument for the sake of it, or to point fingers in here. Must try harder.

So i will simply say, my apologies, Dr, if I was a little less than 'sporting' or even fair. I'm sure you hold your views honestly, and I'll leave it at that.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I have been reminded by she who must be obeyed that I am letting my frustration at the situation get the better of me, too. As I said, we're all flawed.

I will have to continue to respectfully disagree with you, Dr. I don't blame Paul for being ****ed off at the world, and the irish cycling world in particular (aren't we all!), but I still think that tweet was ill advised and a bit of a low blow.

But I realise I have been a little overly aggressive in making my point. It was not my intention to begin an argument for the sake of it, or to point fingers in here. Must try harder.

So i will simply say, my apologies, Dr, if I was a little less than 'sporting' or even fair. I'm sure you hold your views honestly, and I'll leave it at that.

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.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

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