• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Paul Kimmage

Page 17 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Visit site
Re:

MarkvW said:
Sports journalists operate under constraints that make objective reporting difficult or impossible.

The first problem is fundamental. Sports reporting is sports promotion. As interest for a sporting activity declines, interest in the reporter's work product declines. If the sport is not promoted, the sport will die. The conflict with objectivity is obvious.

A second problem is access. The athletes and their employers vitally need the positive promotion of their sport. A reporter who promises negativity will be denied access (Armstrong is the perfect example). A reporter without access will suffer economically. There just aren't that many salable sports stories that can be written without access. That is another source of conflict of interest.

Sports doping is generally a criminal activity that is hidden from public view. Reporting criminal activity before the criminals are arrested rarely happens--because it is extremely expensive.

Then there is defamation. The threat of defamation lawsuits is real and potentially devastating for a reporter who goes too far out on a limb. Armstrong played very effectively on that fear.

Whiny, unsubstantiated doping talk is a waste of a reporter's time.

This discussion about what we ought to expect from sports reporters would be more helpful if we focused on that which is realistically possible.

These are good points.

Also once you become known as someone willing to put anyone on the spot you will bocome a lonely wolff with even less contacts, access, job opportunity etc.

This is perhaps the case with Kimmage.

He's living day by day -hoping that his editor wont get a call from higher authority (hyperbole perhaps).

Someone in that position is not rationally going full genius on his "own people" unless there is a light at the end of that tunnel.

In current sports environment it is understandable to keep your utterings a combination of idealism and tactical nouse.

Kimmage has survived in that game, while being confronted with higher authorities -I do regard him as a general success to the cause of anti-doping.

Has there been some trade-off's along the way?

Possibly, and perhaps some subconscious as well..

But all in all I think he's been doing good in pulling apart the dream theatre served to sports fans around the world.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re:

MarkvW said:
Sports journalists operate under constraints that make objective reporting difficult or impossible.

The first problem is fundamental. Sports reporting is sports promotion. As interest for a sporting activity declines, interest in the reporter's work product declines. If the sport is not promoted, the sport will die. The conflict with objectivity is obvious.

A second problem is access. The athletes and their employers vitally need the positive promotion of their sport. A reporter who promises negativity will be denied access (Armstrong is the perfect example). A reporter without access will suffer economically. There just aren't that many salable sports stories that can be written without access. That is another source of conflict of interest.

Sports doping is generally a criminal activity that is hidden from public view. Reporting criminal activity before the criminals are arrested rarely happens--because it is extremely expensive.

Then there is defamation. The threat of defamation lawsuits is real and potentially devastating for a reporter who goes too far out on a limb. Armstrong played very effectively on that fear.

Whiny, unsubstantiated doping talk is a waste of a reporter's time.

This discussion about what we ought to expect from sports reporters would be more helpful if we focused on that which is realistically possible.

I don't have much time these days for sports journalism. I feel particularly the investigative side of things is severely lacking nowadays. ARD and The Sunday Times reporting on athletics and then the FIFA stuff were really exceptions. This is just me and it might be a bit unfair but I hold reporters to a high standard in this aspect of their work.

A lot of it is just grandstanding for the sake of it, be it with the modern day use of social media by journalists or in press conferences where many questions are just easily fobbed off.
 
Re: Re:

gooner said:
MarkvW said:
Sports journalists operate under constraints that make objective reporting difficult or impossible.

The first problem is fundamental. Sports reporting is sports promotion. As interest for a sporting activity declines, interest in the reporter's work product declines. If the sport is not promoted, the sport will die. The conflict with objectivity is obvious.

A second problem is access. The athletes and their employers vitally need the positive promotion of their sport. A reporter who promises negativity will be denied access (Armstrong is the perfect example). A reporter without access will suffer economically. There just aren't that many salable sports stories that can be written without access. That is another source of conflict of interest.

Sports doping is generally a criminal activity that is hidden from public view. Reporting criminal activity before the criminals are arrested rarely happens--because it is extremely expensive.

Then there is defamation. The threat of defamation lawsuits is real and potentially devastating for a reporter who goes too far out on a limb. Armstrong played very effectively on that fear.

Whiny, unsubstantiated doping talk is a waste of a reporter's time.

This discussion about what we ought to expect from sports reporters would be more helpful if we focused on that which is realistically possible.

I don't have much time these days for sports journalism. I feel particularly the investigative side of things is severely lacking nowadays. ARD and The Sunday Times reporting on athletics and then the FIFA stuff were really exceptions. This is just me and it might be a bit unfair but I hold reporters to a high standard in this aspect of their work.

A lot of it is just grandstanding for the sake of it, be it with the modern day use of social media by journalists or in press conferences where many questions are just easily fobbed off.

Let's wait for Walsh's piece on Radcliffe in the Sunday Times :cool:

Just like he said he would.... or not.
 
Mark in fairness raised an issue above which I've been thinking about - access.
I concede that it's hard to be cold and critical of a person you've been a relationship up with. You meet a guy at a race and he's mannerly, courteous and engaging - it's got to be human nature to be slower to go after that guy. I totally accept this. The key is to not allow yourself get into this situation and be stand off-ish yourself - but then that goes back to access.
A few points about Walsh which really do not reveal him in a good light - ego. He's taking way too much credit for this and really seems to love the limelight. Plus I do know his ego was somewhat damaged when he saw the script and his role wasn't bigger.
The sky hypocrisy thing is there for all and in fairness I think goner recognises this. The lack of any comment on paula is poor.
Kimmage embedded himself in garmin - but that hasn't stopped him being critical of guys like jv and millar since then. Dan Martin thing is curious to me I accept. I am not saying dan is doping, but I am saying his words deserve far more criticism...and even his actions now (Quick Step).

Back to walsh - he can take all the credit in the world for 'exposing lance' but really it was all a waste of time until Floyd came along...without Floyd and jeff, walsh's books would be forgotten about, outside of the likes of us in here. Walsh tried to congratulate himself a couple of years back and said i'd like to think Floyd's revelations were helped by my work with betsy, emma et al - absolute complete and utter bs. I am not saying he didn't work hard on the story - of course he did and in fairness he did some good work at the time, but when push came to shove, it made no difference.

Kayle Leogrande, Jeff, Floyd....and without lance's comeback non of this happens.
 
Re:

Digger said:
Mark in fairness raised an issue above which I've been thinking about - access.
I concede that it's hard to be cold and critical of a person you've been a relationship up with. You meet a guy at a race and he's mannerly, courteous and engaging - it's got to be human nature to be slower to go after that guy. I totally accept this. The key is to not allow yourself get into this situation and be stand off-ish yourself - but then that goes back to access.
A few points about Walsh which really do not reveal him in a good light - ego. He's taking way too much credit for this and really seems to love the limelight. Plus I do know his ego was somewhat damaged when he saw the script and his role wasn't bigger.
The sky hypocrisy thing is there for all and in fairness I think goner recognises this. The lack of any comment on paula is poor.
Kimmage embedded himself in garmin - but that hasn't stopped him being critical of guys like jv and millar since then. Dan Martin thing is curious to me I accept. I am not saying dan is doping, but I am saying his words deserve far more criticism...and even his actions now (Quick Step).

Back to walsh - he can take all the credit in the world for 'exposing lance' but really it was all a waste of time until Floyd came along...without Floyd and jeff, walsh's books would be forgotten about, outside of the likes of us in here. Walsh tried to congratulate himself a couple of years back and said i'd like to think Floyd's revelations were helped by my work with betsy, emma et al - absolute complete and utter bs. I am not saying he didn't work hard on the story - of course he did and in fairness he did some good work at the time, but when push came to shove, it made no difference.

Kayle Leogrande, Jeff, Floyd....and without lance's comeback non of this happens.

Kimmage to his own detriment career and money wise has stuck to guns on doping. That's what I like about him. Walsh sold out and has milked the lance cow for every last cent and is still going. Kimmage not.

Looking back Kimmage's work on the Landis interview was a million times better than what Walsh has ever put together and that amazing interview sits on a free website not like with pay per view BS Walsh articles. Kimmage even did a better job with his Froome interview than Walsh ever did with his money generating books.

It's about credibility. Kimmage has it in abundance. Walsh, not.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

That is nonsense once again. Revisionism of the highest order.

Landis was presented on a plate after he came clean. His story was told to USADA and he also did multiple interviews on NBC, ARD, Graham Bensinger etc. In the case of NBC and ARD he told his story well before the Kimmage interview.

Walsh and a few others did all the heavy lifting. The SCA case came about due to his and Ballester's work. While Kimmage was off covering other sports, Walsh was getting the dates of Armstrong's visits to Ferrari, giving Betsy, Emma, and Swart a platform to air their views and as a result of ended up with a libel case against the paper. You of course know that but your hatred and agenda is now driving a revisionist campaign to change history. And when judging history, it's usually important to get your facts right.

Name one investigative measure Kimmage did between 99-05 to put a dent in the Armstrong myth. Just one. If anything Kimmage repeated other people's work from this period.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

gooner said:
That is nonsense once again. Revisionism of the highest order.

Landis was presented on a plate after he came clean. His story was told to USADA and he also did multiple interviews on NBC, ARD, Graham Bensinger etc. In the case of NBC and ARD he told his story well before the Kimmage interview.

Walsh and a few others did all the heavy lifting. The SCA case came about due to his and Ballester's work. While Kimmage was off covering other sports, Walsh was getting the dates of Armstrong's visits to Ferrari, giving Betsy, Emma, and Swart a platform to air their views and as a result of ended up with a libel case against the paper. You of course know that but your hatred and agenda is now driving a revisionist campaign to change history. And when judging history, it's usually important to get your facts right.

Name one investigative measure Kimmage did between 99-05 to put a dent in the Armstrong myth. Just one. If anything Kimmage repeated other people's work from this period.

Kimmage is not an investigative journalist and that has been posted many times! Kimmage has to produce an article nearly every week. Investigative journalism takes along time before anything gets published!

The Feds did the heavy lifting on the Armstrong case and were the reason he got taken down. Without the Feds Armstrong would've skated yet again. It was team mates that talked which proved to be the real case of 'evidence',not Betsy, not Emma nor Swart who was SOL( who all made a valiant and worthy contributions).
 
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

Benotti69 said:
gooner said:
That is nonsense once again. Revisionism of the highest order.

Landis was presented on a plate after he came clean. His story was told to USADA and he also did multiple interviews on NBC, ARD, Graham Bensinger etc. In the case of NBC and ARD he told his story well before the Kimmage interview.

Walsh and a few others did all the heavy lifting. The SCA case came about due to his and Ballester's work. While Kimmage was off covering other sports, Walsh was getting the dates of Armstrong's visits to Ferrari, giving Betsy, Emma, and Swart a platform to air their views and as a result of ended up with a libel case against the paper. You of course know that but your hatred and agenda is now driving a revisionist campaign to change history. And when judging history, it's usually important to get your facts right.

Name one investigative measure Kimmage did between 99-05 to put a dent in the Armstrong myth. Just one. If anything Kimmage repeated other people's work from this period.

Kimmage is not an investigative journalist and that has been posted many times! Kimmage has to produce an article nearly every week. Investigative journalism takes along time before anything gets published!

The Feds did the heavy lifting on the Armstrong case and were the reason he got taken down. Without the Feds Armstrong would've skated yet again. It was team mates that talked which proved to be the real case of 'evidence',not Betsy, not Emma nor Swart who was SOL( who all made a valiant and worthy contributions).

Very true.

Gooner has drunk the Walsh coolaid "Walsh and a few others did all the heavy lifting" LOL!

The Kimmage interview with Landis on NY Velocity is an outstanding piece of journalism. Contrast that with how Walsh gets to know his subject.... he gets all the dates and facts wrongs and fails to even understand he guy he wrote a book about had asthma! Look at Radcliffe, she was doping through her marathon career and Walsh had not idea when he wrote her book!

The only heavy lifting Walsh was doing was his on BS! :rolleyes:
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

Benotti69 said:
gooner said:
That is nonsense once again. Revisionism of the highest order.

Landis was presented on a plate after he came clean. His story was told to USADA and he also did multiple interviews on NBC, ARD, Graham Bensinger etc. In the case of NBC and ARD he told his story well before the Kimmage interview.

Walsh and a few others did all the heavy lifting. The SCA case came about due to his and Ballester's work. While Kimmage was off covering other sports, Walsh was getting the dates of Armstrong's visits to Ferrari, giving Betsy, Emma, and Swart a platform to air their views and as a result of ended up with a libel case against the paper. You of course know that but your hatred and agenda is now driving a revisionist campaign to change history. And when judging history, it's usually important to get your facts right.

Name one investigative measure Kimmage did between 99-05 to put a dent in the Armstrong myth. Just one. If anything Kimmage repeated other people's work from this period.

Kimmage is not an investigative journalist and that has been posted many times! Kimmage has to produce an article nearly every week. Investigative journalism takes along time before anything gets published!

Walsh also has to produce an article nearly every week. Kimmage's interview with Landis was excellent. Brilliant in fact, I won't come up with any revisionism on that like some love to do with Walsh's work. Landis was already on other platforms discussing coming clean well before Kimmage's interview with him. That wasn't digging behind the scenes and giving him a platform in the same manner that Walsh did with Betsy, Emma and Swart. Investigative journalism is what informs the public the best on any topic and on the story of Armstrong, Walsh deservedly gets the recognition.

The Feds did the heavy lifting on the Armstrong case and were the reason he got taken down. Without the Feds Armstrong would've skated yet again. It was team mates that talked which proved to be the real case of 'evidence',not Betsy, not Emma nor Swart who was SOL( who all made a valiant and worthy contributions).


I said it within the context and realms of journalism.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

thehog said:
Benotti69 said:
gooner said:
That is nonsense once again. Revisionism of the highest order.

Landis was presented on a plate after he came clean. His story was told to USADA and he also did multiple interviews on NBC, ARD, Graham Bensinger etc. In the case of NBC and ARD he told his story well before the Kimmage interview.

Walsh and a few others did all the heavy lifting. The SCA case came about due to his and Ballester's work. While Kimmage was off covering other sports, Walsh was getting the dates of Armstrong's visits to Ferrari, giving Betsy, Emma, and Swart a platform to air their views and as a result of ended up with a libel case against the paper. You of course know that but your hatred and agenda is now driving a revisionist campaign to change history. And when judging history, it's usually important to get your facts right.

Name one investigative measure Kimmage did between 99-05 to put a dent in the Armstrong myth. Just one. If anything Kimmage repeated other people's work from this period.

Kimmage is not an investigative journalist and that has been posted many times! Kimmage has to produce an article nearly every week. Investigative journalism takes along time before anything gets published!

The Feds did the heavy lifting on the Armstrong case and were the reason he got taken down. Without the Feds Armstrong would've skated yet again. It was team mates that talked which proved to be the real case of 'evidence',not Betsy, not Emma nor Swart who was SOL( who all made a valiant and worthy contributions).

Very true.

Gooner has drunk the Walsh coolaid "Walsh and a few others did all the heavy lifting" LOL!

The Kimmage interview with Landis on NY Velocity is an outstanding piece of journalism. Contrast that with how Walsh gets to know his subject.... he gets all the dates and facts wrongs and fails to even understand he guy he wrote a book about had asthma! Look at Radcliffe, she was doping through her marathon career and Walsh had not idea when he wrote her book!

The only heavy lifting Walsh was doing was his on BS! :rolleyes:

We were comparing solely the work on Walsh and Kimmage on Armstrong and now you move the goalposts to Radcliffe and Froome.

Clear as day why you move the goalposts.
 
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

gooner said:
thehog said:
Benotti69 said:
gooner said:
That is nonsense once again. Revisionism of the highest order.

Landis was presented on a plate after he came clean. His story was told to USADA and he also did multiple interviews on NBC, ARD, Graham Bensinger etc. In the case of NBC and ARD he told his story well before the Kimmage interview.

Walsh and a few others did all the heavy lifting. The SCA case came about due to his and Ballester's work. While Kimmage was off covering other sports, Walsh was getting the dates of Armstrong's visits to Ferrari, giving Betsy, Emma, and Swart a platform to air their views and as a result of ended up with a libel case against the paper. You of course know that but your hatred and agenda is now driving a revisionist campaign to change history. And when judging history, it's usually important to get your facts right.

Name one investigative measure Kimmage did between 99-05 to put a dent in the Armstrong myth. Just one. If anything Kimmage repeated other people's work from this period.

Kimmage is not an investigative journalist and that has been posted many times! Kimmage has to produce an article nearly every week. Investigative journalism takes along time before anything gets published!

The Feds did the heavy lifting on the Armstrong case and were the reason he got taken down. Without the Feds Armstrong would've skated yet again. It was team mates that talked which proved to be the real case of 'evidence',not Betsy, not Emma nor Swart who was SOL( who all made a valiant and worthy contributions).

Very true.

Gooner has drunk the Walsh coolaid "Walsh and a few others did all the heavy lifting" LOL!

The Kimmage interview with Landis on NY Velocity is an outstanding piece of journalism. Contrast that with how Walsh gets to know his subject.... he gets all the dates and facts wrongs and fails to even understand he guy he wrote a book about had asthma! Look at Radcliffe, she was doping through her marathon career and Walsh had not idea when he wrote her book!

The only heavy lifting Walsh was doing was his on BS! :rolleyes:

We were comparing solely the work on Walsh and Kimmage on Armstrong and now you move the goalposts to Radcliffe and Froome.

Clear as day why you move the goalposts.

I like how you just make up the rules as you go along and they say "hey look he moved the goalposts".

This is the Paul Kimmage thread, we talk about Kimmage. And we talk about Walsh. And we compare the two on their journalistic track records.

Stop trying to fudge the soundtrack in favour of Walsh, it's very obvious.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

gooner said:
Walsh also has to produce an article nearly every week. Kimmage's interview with Landis was excellent. Brilliant in fact, I won't come up with any revisionism on that like some love to do with Walsh's work. Landis was already on other platforms discussing coming clean well before Kimmage's interview with him. That wasn't digging behind the scenes and giving him a platform in the same manner that Walsh did with Betsy, Emma and Swart. Investigative journalism is what informs the public the best on any topic and on the story of Armstrong, Walsh deservedly gets the recognition.

Walsh has only done the investigative work and even then lots was handed to him on a plate on the Armstrong story Lots of the numbers were done by Ballestre, not too mention Emma O'Reilly doing lots of her rewriting Walsh's effort on her chapter. Walsh did not have to do a lot of work as Betsy came to him with other information and Swart's confession was news and did not require much investigation.

Walsh's work on Armstrong required some investigation but not lots. Others did a lot of the work for that ans Walsh merely wrote half of it.What Walsh writes for ST is hardly difficult. He is chief reporter, sometimes a match report is all Walsh provides.

Again to repeat, Kimmage is probably his harshest critic, but some in here are targetting him extremely unfairly. Still calling Kimmage an investigative reporter is BS.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

thehog said:
I like how you just make up the rules as you go along and they say "hey look he moved the goalposts".

This is the Paul Kimmage thread, we talk about Kimmage. And we talk about Walsh. And we compare the two on their journalistic track records.

Stop trying to fudge the soundtrack in favour of Walsh, it's very obvious.

You said:

Looking back Kimmage's work on the Landis interview was a million times better than what Walsh has ever put together and that amazing interview sits on a free website not like with pay per view BS Walsh articles.

I responded to your distortion and corrected you. (BTW Kimmage worked for the ST as well with his articles behind paywall. A bit ridiculous to criticise any journalist for that).

Then asked:

Name one investigative measure Kimmage did between 99-05 to put a dent in the Armstrong myth. Just one. If anything Kimmage repeated other people's work from this period.

You failed to answer.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

Benotti69 said:
gooner said:
Walsh also has to produce an article nearly every week. Kimmage's interview with Landis was excellent. Brilliant in fact, I won't come up with any revisionism on that like some love to do with Walsh's work. Landis was already on other platforms discussing coming clean well before Kimmage's interview with him. That wasn't digging behind the scenes and giving him a platform in the same manner that Walsh did with Betsy, Emma and Swart. Investigative journalism is what informs the public the best on any topic and on the story of Armstrong, Walsh deservedly gets the recognition.

Walsh has only done the investigative work and even then lots was handed to him on a plate on the Armstrong story Lots of the numbers were done by Ballestre, not too mention Emma O'Reilly doing lots of her rewriting Walsh's effort on her chapter. Walsh did not have to do a lot of work as Betsy came to him with other information and Swart's confession was news and did not require much investigation.

Walsh's work on Armstrong required some investigation but not lots. Others did a lot of the work for that ans Walsh merely wrote half of it.What Walsh writes for ST is hardly difficult. He is chief reporter, sometimes a match report is all Walsh provides.

Again to repeat, Kimmage is probably his harshest critic, but some in here are targetting him extremely unfairly. Still calling Kimmage an investigative reporter is BS.

It was said by someone else that Kimmage made more of a difference than Walsh with Armstrong. That is rubbish and so therefore, it was necessary to judge it by the benchmark of Walsh's work.
 
Re:

Digger said:
Interesting for me how walsh didn't know the contents of the kimmage/landis piece - he even conceded later that everything was in there.

That's the difference between Kimmage & Walsh. Kimmage takes the time to research his subject and he gets the best out of them. They treat him like a friend. Walsh tends to make stuff up and fills in gaps with hyperbole and dreadful writing. Walsh doesn't even know Froome was an an asthmatic but claims he believes in him. Kimmage would never make such a schoolboy error like Walsh.
 
Walsh didn't even know what wiggins had said about Floyd - how can you possibly be about to interview wiggins and not no that the subject had basically vilified the guy who exposed the truth about lance? And yes, as hog points out, say what you want about kimmage but there is no way that would happen with him. So much of walsh's stuff is lack of preparation - wiggins told walsh he was getting out of the bus at the tour when he said this about Floyd - walsh hadn't his homework done so couldn't say 'Bradley that's BS as you said it In January.' Walsh didn't know that brailsford had used the death of the soignuer as a pretext to hiring leinders - just basic stuff.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

gooner said:
Benotti69 said:
gooner said:
Walsh also has to produce an article nearly every week. Kimmage's interview with Landis was excellent. Brilliant in fact, I won't come up with any revisionism on that like some love to do with Walsh's work. Landis was already on other platforms discussing coming clean well before Kimmage's interview with him. That wasn't digging behind the scenes and giving him a platform in the same manner that Walsh did with Betsy, Emma and Swart. Investigative journalism is what informs the public the best on any topic and on the story of Armstrong, Walsh deservedly gets the recognition.

Walsh has only done the investigative work and even then lots was handed to him on a plate on the Armstrong story Lots of the numbers were done by Ballestre, not too mention Emma O'Reilly doing lots of her rewriting Walsh's effort on her chapter. Walsh did not have to do a lot of work as Betsy came to him with other information and Swart's confession was news and did not require much investigation.

Walsh's work on Armstrong required some investigation but not lots. Others did a lot of the work for that ans Walsh merely wrote half of it.What Walsh writes for ST is hardly difficult. He is chief reporter, sometimes a match report is all Walsh provides.

Again to repeat, Kimmage is probably his harshest critic, but some in here are targetting him extremely unfairly. Still calling Kimmage an investigative reporter is BS.

It was said by someone else that Kimmage made more of a difference than Walsh with Armstrong. That is rubbish and so therefore, it was necessary to judge it by the benchmark of Walsh's work.

Kimmage has made of a difference than Walsh is sporting terms and I daresay that if Kimmage spent the same effort and time on the Armstrong story as Walsh did, Armstrong would not have made a comeback and the feds might have gotten interested sooner.

Kimmage was the one being sued by UCI and still has an ongoing case by Verbruggen. Walsh called libel cases Emmys or Oscars, iirc. I think Kimmage is doing a pretty decent job of being a thorn in the side of dirty sport.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

Benotti69 said:
Kimmage has made of a difference than Walsh is sporting terms and I daresay that if Kimmage spent the same effort and time on the Armstrong story as Walsh did, Armstrong would not have made a comeback and the feds might have gotten interested sooner.

Before Armstrong's comeback, there was damning evidence up to their eyeballs with Armstrong to take him down, some of which Walsh was a part of disclosing. I don't see how can you say that and secondly, I don't think that portrays Kimmage in a good manner if you're saying it was all about applying effort to the topic. As an anti-doping journalist, he should be doing it. Walsh, Lemond, and Prentice Steffen were trying to get a whistleblower case going and couldn't achieve it.

Kimmage was the one being sued by UCI and still has an ongoing case by Verbruggen. Walsh called libel cases Emmys or Oscars, iirc. I think Kimmage is doing a pretty decent job of being a thorn in the side of dirty sport.

Agree with that. I'm totally with him on the issue of the UCI.
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

Fair enough there is criticism with Walsh on Froome and Sky books, Wiggins interview etc. Some of it is well justified, yet at the same time, I think the attacks on his character border on the hysterical.

I still don't think in those circumstance that makes it right to come up with revisionism on his work with Armstrong when the same guys doing it on here are the ones who were totally on his side before his reporting on Sky. That is a clear attempt at rewriting history. But then again, this isn't solely being done to Walsh either, as Betsy and Greg are getting it in the neck, while the flip flop has gone full circle with the support now towards to Lance and Johan.

It's a parody considering the calling of Wiggins and Sky as bullies, that they now have empathy for the two biggest bully boys of all.

On Kimmage, I don't think he as principled as some say he is. He has directed huge criticism towards the conflict of interests between Sky and Murdoch, as well as being let go by The Sunday Times. That being the case, why then did he apply for work on Sky Sports for the 2013 Tour, something I know to be true. That is hugely hypocritical after his outspoken views on the issue.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

gooner said:
Benotti69 said:
Kimmage has made of a difference than Walsh is sporting terms and I daresay that if Kimmage spent the same effort and time on the Armstrong story as Walsh did, Armstrong would not have made a comeback and the feds might have gotten interested sooner.

Before Armstrong's comeback, there was damning evidence up to their eyeballs with Armstrong to take him down, some of which Walsh was a part of disclosing. I don't see how can you say that and secondly, I don't think that portrays Kimmage in a good manner if you're saying it was all about applying effort to the topic. As an anti-doping journalist, he should be doing it. Walsh, Lemond, and Prentice Steffen were trying to get a whistleblower case going and couldn't achieve it.

Does Kimmage have a byline that says 'anti-doping journalist'? i dont think so and he never did.

When Kimmage went to Sunday TImes after Walsh, there was no way he was going to be allowed to take over the Armstrong story. Yes he got to write stuff, but it was Walsh's story and Walsh is now milking it.

Most investigative journalists, and Kimmage is not one, work on one story for a long time. I dont think Kimmage has ever had that opportunity or luxury.

Is Walsh an anti-doping journalist? No his title is Chief Sports Reporter. Again this criticism of Kimmage is way OTT. If the guy retired from journalism tomorrow he can walk away with his head held high.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

gooner said:
On Kimmage, I don't think he as principled as some say he is. He has directed huge criticism towards the conflict of interests between Sky and Murdoch, as well as being let go by The Sunday Times. That being the case, why then did he apply for work on Sky Sports for the 2013 Tour, something I know to be true. That is hugely hypocritical after his outspoken views on the issue.

Your dislike of Kimmage is intense. His faults are the least of cycling's problems yet you are giving him so much attention and ignoring other threads about the problems in the sport. That says more about you then Kimmage.

You dont see any conflict between cycling TeamSky and Murdoch? All the Murdoch press has not written any criticism of Sky. The only piece was of old fish thrown to those who know the sport was JTL and event that was blamed on his time before Sky.

As for Kimmage applying for the Sky Sports Job, why not? He needed a job and maybe calling a spade a spade on sky was part of his plan if he got the job! You were singing the praises of Calvert and Arbuthnott and their work on FIFA, why not Kimmage try and apply his journalism at Sky sports. It probably would not have lasted but why not try?

In 2012 Kimmage was named among the top 10 most influential sportswriters in Britain by the trade publication, UK Press Gazette. He is obviously according to UK Press Gazette doing something right.
 
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

Benotti69 said:
gooner said:
On Kimmage, I don't think he as principled as some say he is. He has directed huge criticism towards the conflict of interests between Sky and Murdoch, as well as being let go by The Sunday Times. That being the case, why then did he apply for work on Sky Sports for the 2013 Tour, something I know to be true. That is hugely hypocritical after his outspoken views on the issue.

Your dislike of Kimmage is intense. His faults are the least of cycling's problems yet you are giving him so much attention and ignoring other threads about the problems in the sport. That says more about you then Kimmage.

You dont see any conflict between cycling TeamSky and Murdoch? All the Murdoch press has not written any criticism of Sky. The only piece was of old fish thrown to those who know the sport was JTL and event that was blamed on his time before Sky.

As for Kimmage applying for the Sky Sports Job, why not? He needed a job and maybe calling a spade a spade on sky was part of his plan if he got the job! You were singing the praises of Calvert and Arbuthnott and their work on FIFA, why not Kimmage try and apply his journalism at Sky sports. It probably would not have lasted but why not try?

In 2012 Kimmage was named among the top 10 most influential sportswriters in Britain by the trade publication, UK Press Gazette. He is obviously according to UK Press Gazette doing something right.

Indeed, Kimmage was number 5. Guess who was number 2

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/martin-samuel-named-top-uk-sports-journalist-press-gazette-top-50-poll
 
Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Visit site
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

Avoriaz said:
Benotti69 said:
gooner said:
On Kimmage, I don't think he as principled as some say he is. He has directed huge criticism towards the conflict of interests between Sky and Murdoch, as well as being let go by The Sunday Times. That being the case, why then did he apply for work on Sky Sports for the 2013 Tour, something I know to be true. That is hugely hypocritical after his outspoken views on the issue.

Your dislike of Kimmage is intense. His faults are the least of cycling's problems yet you are giving him so much attention and ignoring other threads about the problems in the sport. That says more about you then Kimmage.

You dont see any conflict between cycling TeamSky and Murdoch? All the Murdoch press has not written any criticism of Sky. The only piece was of old fish thrown to those who know the sport was JTL and event that was blamed on his time before Sky.

As for Kimmage applying for the Sky Sports Job, why not? He needed a job and maybe calling a spade a spade on sky was part of his plan if he got the job! You were singing the praises of Calvert and Arbuthnott and their work on FIFA, why not Kimmage try and apply his journalism at Sky sports. It probably would not have lasted but why not try?

In 2012 Kimmage was named among the top 10 most influential sportswriters in Britain by the trade publication, UK Press Gazette. He is obviously according to UK Press Gazette doing something right.

Indeed, Kimmage was number 5. Guess who was number 2

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/martin-samuel-named-top-uk-sports-journalist-press-gazette-top-50-poll

Lol.
 

TRENDING THREADS