Paul Kimmage

[gooner]

Re: Re:

I don't take much notice either of his criticisms about Sky, The Times and Murdoch when you consider he's working for a Denis O'Brien owned newspaper, a guy who is up to his eyeballs in corruption with bribing politicians and challenging and suppressing the democratic process in this country.

Try writing and criticising as a sports journalist why the FAI are using Denis O'Brien to pay Trappatoni's and O'Neill's wages or his shareholding at Celtic.

Of course he won't touch that as he might put his job in jeopardy and the story wouldn't be published. Just ask Sam Smyth.

So why dont you have a go at john Greene then the sports editor? Maybe Kimmage is pulling his hair out trying to get the independent to do stories on doping in Rugby but DOB has put a block on it.

Have you put your job in jeopardy? Kimmage has done it once. You expect him to do it constantly?

Why would I have a go at John Greene? Sam Smyth's article was published about Denis O'Brien and the Moriarty Tribunal. He was let go and was told to stop talking about it on his Today FM radio show( Denis O'Brien owned). In the end he was also got left go from there.

It is a well-known fact that anyone linked with Denis O'Brien's media monopoly can't report independently as a journalist in a critical manner of his dealings. In the football thread, I have been very critical of the FAI using his wages to pay Trap and O'Neill after the Moriarty Tribunal findings. Try writing about that. Barely a word is ever said in the media about it and there's a clear reason for that. He's a far bigger suppressor of that than anything you may think with Sky/The Times/ Murdoch.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

In case you haven't noticed, we aren't saying this latest phenomenon to drugs in rugby is new to this era and are not dismissing the point about their widespread existence.

Irrespective of what others said, he is a sports journalist who has covered rugby plenty and yet in late 2014 was the first time he decided to question the sport even though there was plenty to go on before that. The same can be said for football, he did plenty of reporting on Irish games during his first stint at the Irish Indo. Little or nothing on football..

Interviewed multiple tennis players and covered Wimbledon's and besides one question to Nadal about Puerto, he has hasn't broached that subject near enough.

Turns up at Ryder Cups and other golf tournaments praising McGinley and Harrington, being the fan with the typewriter he so despises with others, while Greg Norman calling the sports anti-doping procedures disgraceful.

This reeks of hurt. He hurt your favourite sport so you are angry at Kimmage. Not angry at golf journalists, rugby journalists, Tennis journalists, but angry at Kimmage for telling the truth about cycling.

Football is my favourite sport, yet one of the sports that I'm saying he hasn't done enough with is?

Your anger at a guy who has done lots to expose the cheating in sport is obvious. Then you must be ranting and raging on Footie forums at the the lack of spines in the football hacks!

 

[DFA123]

It's ridiculous to expect Kimmage to be some kind of all-seeing, all-knowing god of anti doping. He has his work cut out just keeping the pressure on the UCI and on cycling - an area in which he has loads of contacts and is a real focal point of anti-doping.

If he tried to do the same with rugby, football or whatever else, there is no way he would have the time to go into any depth, and would really struggle to defend himself in court if he was challenged. He could lose all credibility quickly. Sure he covers rugby and football as a fan, but that's nothing like in cycling, where he knows how it works behind the scenes inside out, and probably has loads of influential contacts and even access to some whistle-blowers.

Much better, imo, for him to remain a highly informed, relevant anti-doping expert in cycling, than for him to start throwing around accusations (however, true they may well be), about sports where he doesn't have the same depth of knowledge and experience.

 

[gooner]

Re:

It's ridiculous to expect Kimmage to be some kind of all-seeing, all-knowing god of anti doping. He has his work cut out just keeping the pressure on the UCI and on cycling - an area in which he has loads of contacts and is a real focal point of anti-doping.

If he tried to do the same with rugby, football or whatever else, there is no way he would have the time to go into any depth, and would really struggle to defend himself in court if he was challenged. He could lose all credibility quickly. Sure he covers rugby and football as a fan, but that's nothing like in cycling, where he knows how it works behind the scenes inside out, and probably has loads of influential contacts and even access to some whistle-blowers.

Much better, imo, for him to remain a highly informed, relevant anti-doping expert in cycling, than for him to start throwing around accusations (however, true they may well be), about sports where he doesn't have the same depth of knowledge and experience.

Outside of the Tour, there is little written in the Indo by Kimmage on cycling.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

Oh dear, attack the grammar when all else fails.

Jimmy you failed a long time ago. Attacks on kimmage are pathetic. Try having a go at those who never wrote a word in anger, the true fans with typewriters before having a go at a guy who has more than tried to do something about exposing cheats in sport.

That's your opinion. I don't share it. I think this debate has shown Kimmage not to be objective in his accusations. You don't like it so are doing your best to make as much noise as possible to drown out any criticism of Precious Paul. I applaud his crusade against drugs cheats, but think he should be less selective about who he goes after. It's a fairly simple point.

Agree with this.

The backbone of his criticism with Nico Roche is that he signed for Riis, yet never said a word about Deignan riding for Bruyneel at Radioshack. In fact he said he likes Deignan. A prime example of being selective.

 

[gooner]

Re:

While he says he doesn't know if any Irish rugby players in the past have used performance enhancing drugs, he says it would be naïve to discount the idea.

"You've got to be blind to think that this is going on in France, and Argentina and South Africa and England – because if you look at the anti-doping stats now on the positives recently in England, most of them are rugby union players - they you are going to be a bit naïve to think that we are somehow insulated from that."

"I don't know," he replied if he believed Irish rugby players have doped.

Isn't this exactly the same stance which some on here take about Sky and get constantly abused for?

How very true.

 

[JimmyFingers]

The lack of positives in Irish rugby did really make my eyebrows rise. In fact the very low numbers of Irish positives (several of which were for cannabis) makes me wonder how hard the Irish go after drug cheats. Something an Irish anti-doping journalist might be interested in. I found this article from 1998:

http://irishecho.com/2011/02/drugs-bombshell-rocks-irish-rugby-2/

Oh and if we need further evidence of double standards of the clinic, Walsh's tweet in response to a question about Astana during the Giro was cited as an example of Sky's bullying, yet Kimmage's tweeted accusations are all lauded.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Oh dear, attack the grammar when all else fails.

Jimmy you failed a long time ago. Attacks on kimmage are pathetic. Try having a go at those who never wrote a word in anger, the true fans with typewriters before having a go at a guy who has more than tried to do something about exposing cheats in sport.

That's your opinion. I don't share it. I think this debate has shown Kimmage not to be objective in his accusations. You don't like it so are doing your best to make as much noise as possible to drown out any criticism of Precious Paul. I applaud his crusade against drugs cheats, but think he should be less selective about who he goes after. It's a fairly simple point.

Agree with this.

The backbone of his criticism with Nico Roche is that he signed for Riis, yet never said a word about Deignan riding for Bruyneel at Radioshack. In fact he said he likes Deignan. A prime example of being selective.

Kimmage did a very good interview with Nico Roche. It was obvious to me that Roche was not honest with Kimmage. If you read between the lines it Roche outed himself.

Plenty on here have argued, riding for a doping team does not make a rider a doper.

Kimmage the target of your ire, but what about those that dont mention doping, why are you not attacking them?

That is the most telling part of people's anger at Kimmage? that they dont feel the same about others is really telling.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

The lack of positives in Irish rugby did really make my eyebrows rise. In fact the very low numbers of Irish positives (several of which were for cannabis) makes me wonder how hard the Irish go after drug cheats. Something an Irish anti-doping journalist might be interested in. I found this article from 1998:

http://irishecho.com/2011/02/drugs-bombshell-rocks-irish-rugby-2/

Oh and if we need further evidence of double standards of the clinic, Walsh's tweet in response to a question about Astana during the Giro was cited as an example of Sky's bullying, yet Kimmage's tweeted accusations are all lauded.

So IRFU is to blame for lack of positives but you shoot Kimmage! Well done Jimmy!

 

[JimmyFingers]

See it's not anger, or attacking, more simply that he's not the unfettered anti-doping messiah many on here and elsewhere laud him as.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Re: Re:

The lack of positives in Irish rugby did really make my eyebrows rise. In fact the very low numbers of Irish positives (several of which were for cannabis) makes me wonder how hard the Irish go after drug cheats. Something an Irish anti-doping journalist might be interested in. I found this article from 1998:

http://irishecho.com/2011/02/drugs-bombshell-rocks-irish-rugby-2/

Oh and if we need further evidence of double standards of the clinic, Walsh's tweet in response to a question about Astana during the Giro was cited as an example of Sky's bullying, yet Kimmage's tweeted accusations are all lauded.

So IRFU is to blame for lack of positives but you shoot Kimmage! Well done Jimmy!

Actually it's the Irish Sports Council that seems to do the anti-doping, I linked to their page a while back. And wind back the hyperbole, no-one is shooting anyone.

 

[Bernie's eyesore]

Re:

See it's not anger, or attacking, more simply that he's not the unfettered anti-doping messiah many on here and elsewhere laud him as.

That and the sheer hypocrisy of those who hero worship him.

 

[wendybnt]

Re: Re:

Who know when Roche first used epo? Roche used it later with Conconi, but for his 1987 it was probably transfusions. The Tour that year was very long and very hard and very soon after his Giro win.

While I won't argue the likelihood of Roche having used blood bags in the '80s before graduating to EPO in the '90s, the 1987 Q is this: when was the blood taken out? When he was hiding from the media in Dublin? Before the end of the Giro? Early in the Tour?

The follow up Q then is when it went back in: Ventoux? Alpe d'Huez? La Plagne?

What makes you think it would have to have been his own blood?

By the way, to the people getting upset for Kimmage being attacked for what he is saying....he isn't.
He is being attacked for what he isn't saying

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

See it's not anger, or attacking, more simply that he's not the unfettered anti-doping messiah many on here and elsewhere laud him as.

I think the OP is the only one to call him hero not many Jimmy, but you like to obfuscate......

As far as i am concerned Kimmage is a decent journalist, great interviewer and has done some great work, but he aint a hero. Gino Bartali is the only hero i know in cycling.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Re: Re:

See it's not anger, or attacking, more simply that he's not the unfettered anti-doping messiah many on here and elsewhere laud him as.

I think the OP is the only one to call him hero not many Jimmy, but you like to obfuscate......

As far as i am concerned Kimmage is a decent journalist, great interviewer and has done some great work, but he aint a hero. Gino Bartali is the only hero i know in cycling.

Then I don't get the all the song and dance defending him then.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

The lack of positives in Irish rugby did really make my eyebrows rise. In fact the very low numbers of Irish positives (several of which were for cannabis) makes me wonder how hard the Irish go after drug cheats. Something an Irish anti-doping journalist might be interested in. I found this article from 1998:

http://irishecho.com/2011/02/drugs-bombshell-rocks-irish-rugby-2/

Oh and if we need further evidence of double standards of the clinic, Walsh's tweet in response to a question about Astana during the Giro was cited as an example of Sky's bullying, yet Kimmage's tweeted accusations are all lauded.

So IRFU is to blame for lack of positives but you shoot Kimmage! Well done Jimmy!

Actually it's the Irish Sports Council that seems to do the anti-doping, I linked to their page a while back. And wind back the hyperbole, no-one is shooting anyone.

Character assassination another English language term for 'shooting' someone.

That people think Kimmage has not done enough, what must you think of those who suck up to teams and riders!!!

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

See it's not anger, or attacking, more simply that he's not the unfettered anti-doping messiah many on here and elsewhere laud him as.

I think the OP is the only one to call him hero not many Jimmy, but you like to obfuscate......

As far as i am concerned Kimmage is a decent journalist, great interviewer and has done some great work, but he aint a hero. Gino Bartali is the only hero i know in cycling.

Then I don't get the all the song and dance defending him then.

You are giving it the all singing and dancing crucifying him. Kimmage has done enough in his career to expose cheats.

 

[wendybnt]

More whataboutery.

You are constantly trying to deflect away from Kimmages's blind worship of dopers.

 

[JimmyFingers]

You could say the same about Walsh, doesn't stop people here putting the boot into him.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

Oh dear, attack the grammar when all else fails.

Jimmy you failed a long time ago. Attacks on kimmage are pathetic. Try having a go at those who never wrote a word in anger, the true fans with typewriters before having a go at a guy who has more than tried to do something about exposing cheats in sport.

That's your opinion. I don't share it. I think this debate has shown Kimmage not to be objective in his accusations. You don't like it so are doing your best to make as much noise as possible to drown out any criticism of Precious Paul. I applaud his crusade against drugs cheats, but think he should be less selective about who he goes after. It's a fairly simple point.

Agree with this.

The backbone of his criticism with Nico Roche is that he signed for Riis, yet never said a word about Deignan riding for Bruyneel at Radioshack. In fact he said he likes Deignan. A prime example of being selective.

Kimmage did a very good interview with Nico Roche. It was obvious to me that Roche was not honest with Kimmage. If you read between the lines it Roche outed himself.

Plenty on here have argued, riding for a doping team does not make a rider a doper.

Kimmage the target of your ire, but what about those that dont mention doping, why are you not attacking them?

That is the most telling part of people's anger at Kimmage? that they dont feel the same about others is really telling.

Benotti, Deignan joined Radioshack before Roche went to Riis. Why didn't Kimmage go after him? Instead he praises him for an interview on Today FM for saying everyone knew over the years that Armstrong doped and stayed quiet over it. Yet Kimmage forgot that he signed for his team.

 

[Cycle Chic]

so which books were written about doping in the peloton before Rough Ride ? or was he the first to spit in the soup with a pen ?

 

[JimmyFingers]

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/the-times-sport/europe-study-finds-steroids-inelite-players/story-fniiw3ie-1227535945715?sv=2725cbb64b5978ac75a0b8a19d86a65c

I think when you read things like this you can understand why tweets praising the Irish football tam is incongruous for someone who is so vocal about certain athletes doping and not others.

 

[wendybnt]

Re:

so which books were written about doping in the peloton before Rough Ride ? or was he the first to spit in the soup with a pen ?

You new to cycling?

Doping has been going on in cycling since the late 1800s. It has been known about all along.
You've obviously never heard of Albert Londres and Le Petit Parisien.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Jimmy you failed a long time ago. Attacks on kimmage are pathetic. Try having a go at those who never wrote a word in anger, the true fans with typewriters before having a go at a guy who has more than tried to do something about exposing cheats in sport.

That's your opinion. I don't share it. I think this debate has shown Kimmage not to be objective in his accusations. You don't like it so are doing your best to make as much noise as possible to drown out any criticism of Precious Paul. I applaud his crusade against drugs cheats, but think he should be less selective about who he goes after. It's a fairly simple point.

Agree with this.

The backbone of his criticism with Nico Roche is that he signed for Riis, yet never said a word about Deignan riding for Bruyneel at Radioshack. In fact he said he likes Deignan. A prime example of being selective.

Kimmage did a very good interview with Nico Roche. It was obvious to me that Roche was not honest with Kimmage. If you read between the lines it Roche outed himself.

Plenty on here have argued, riding for a doping team does not make a rider a doper.

Kimmage the target of your ire, but what about those that dont mention doping, why are you not attacking them?

That is the most telling part of people's anger at Kimmage? that they dont feel the same about others is really telling.

Benotti, Deignan joined Radioshack before Roche went to Riis. Why didn't Kimmage go after him? Instead he praises him for an interview on Today FM for saying everyone knew over the years that Armstrong doped and stayed quiet over it. Yet Kimmage forgot that he signed for his team.

Did i claim Kimmage is perfect? Obviously you are and the sport of cycling (nevermind football) is luck to have such a fan.......

Kimmage got it so wrong on Kohl when Kohl won in 2008 TdF.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

so which books were written about doping in the peloton before Rough Ride ? or was he the first to spit in the soup with a pen ?

You new to cycling?

Doping has been going on in cycling since the late 1800s. It has been known about all along.
You've obviously never heard of Albert Londres and Le Petit Parisien.

The question was "Which books?"

Why obfuscate again? Either answer the post or dont!