Paul Kimmage

Page 18 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
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.
 
May 10, 2009
3,654
0
0
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
19,530
0
0
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
3,762
0
0
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
3,762
0
0
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
19,530
0
0
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
19,530
0
0
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
3,762
0
0
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.
 
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

thehog said:
gooner said:
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

Much of the recent posting has been about Kimmage's consistency.

Benotti argued that Kimmage must be doing something right if he is in the 10 most influential sports writers. I pointed out that so was Walsh, but gave no view as to whether this means Walsh is doing something right too.

For consistency, we must conclude that if being on the list means Kimmage is a good writer then so is Walsh, or if Walsh bring on the list strips the list of any meaning and therefore it doesn't mean Kimmage is doing things right.
 
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

Avoriaz said:
Nice, incorrect, deduction. Much of the recent posting has been about Kimmage's consistency.

Benotti argued that Kimmage must be doing something right if he is in the 10 most influential sports writers. I pointed out that so was Walsh, but gave no view as to whether this means Walsh is doing something right too.

For consistency, we must conclude that if being on the list means Kimmage is a good writer then so is Walsh, or if Walsh bring on the list strips the list of any meaning and therefore it doesn't mean Kimmage is doing things right.
Inside Team Sky and The Climb were published after the poll was conducted.
 
Aug 2, 2012
4,219
0
0
strong

thehog said:
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.
was this post well researched..........or driven by dislike for walsh/team sky

walsh has strength as does kimmage......both can serve cycling.......why fall in to trap of
comparing the two......better to judge their individual merits........separately

Mark L
 
Jul 11, 2013
2,656
0
0
I think some comparison of the two is okay, however this is the Kimmage thread and if posting about Walsh here the connection and point wrt Kimmage must be clear.
 
Jul 17, 2012
3,278
0
0
So the way to counter any criticism for Kimmage is simply to put the boot even more into Walsh. I think both should be respected for work they have done, but both have question marks over what they have done since.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
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
How the might numbers 2s have fallen.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

Avoriaz said:
thehog said:
gooner said:
Avoriaz said:
Benotti69 said:
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

Much of the recent posting has been about Kimmage's consistency.

Benotti argued that Kimmage must be doing something right if he is in the 10 most influential sports writers. I pointed out that so was Walsh, but gave no view as to whether this means Walsh is doing something right too.

For consistency, we must conclude that if being on the list means Kimmage is a good writer then so is Walsh, or if Walsh bring on the list strips the list of any meaning and therefore it doesn't mean Kimmage is doing things right.
I have argued far more than that. Although that list is from 2012 and prior to Walsh selling out to Sky/Murdoch.

But then you know this. I pointed out that UK Press Gazzette think he was doing something right. But twist away.

For consistency we should read more than one post before drawing a conclusion.
 
Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

The problem for Walsh and his Sky books is he pretends that he is being "investigative" and a journalist. When in reality he has been comissioned and paid to write a book about Sky & Froome. However he lets the reader think that he is being impartial when clearly he is not and can't be impartial due to his conflict of interest.

In effect he is subtlety dupping his readers.

Kimmage has no such connections to Sky or Garmin or Armstrong and was free to write based on his observations and evidence he collected.

In my mind I have much more trust & faith in Kimmage than Walsh. It's very clear why Walsh can't be taken objectively and for that he can't be taken seriously.
 
May 26, 2010
19,530
0
0
IMO Kimmage got it very wrong on Garmin and Vaughters. But then again Vaughters is a smooth salesman. He has convinced lots of people his team are The Clean Team.

I think if Kimmage sat down with some more knowledgable clinicians he would learn a thing or 2.

Walsh is away with his millions, from Sky and Armstrong movie......although Ballestre may yet take a chunk of that.

I dont think Kimmage is actually that focussed on cycling, he follows it from a distance. Probably finds it too depressing to start scratching the surface. Cant blame him really. Also the Verbruggen case must be occupying his mind quite a bit.
 
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
JimmyFingers said:
Sounds like you are making excuses for him now, just saying.
For Walsh? Not at all. He gets paid by Sky to write books, it's very straight forward.

Kimmage is not paid by Sky.
More distortion again.

And again on the issue of Kimmage doing more with Armstrong, remember he told Walsh to stop reporting on it at one point.
 
Re: Re:

gooner said:
thehog said:
JimmyFingers said:
Sounds like you are making excuses for him now, just saying.
For Walsh? Not at all. He gets paid by Sky to write books, it's very straight forward.

Kimmage is not paid by Sky.
More distortion again.
I rest my case... :rolleyes:

In extracts from his new book, The Climb, serialised exclusively in The Sunday Times...
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1414785.ece

Walsh admitted that he "wouldn't have a clue about power wattage" and other metrics that have been used in analysing Froome's performance.
http://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/david-walsh-the-times-is-not-a-team-sky-mouthpiece-but-article-in-question-was-daft-31397211.html

Walsh has a serious monetary conflict of interest. He's not to be taken seriously.
 
Jul 17, 2012
3,278
0
0
The articles you link to don't seem to make the point you are attempting to, and I was answering Benotti and talking about Kimmage. On the Kimmage thread. I would have thought the Walsh thread would be ample platform for your hatchet job on Walsh.
 
Mar 25, 2013
3,762
0
0
Re: Re:

thehog said:
gooner said:
thehog said:
JimmyFingers said:
Sounds like you are making excuses for him now, just saying.
For Walsh? Not at all. He gets paid by Sky to write books, it's very straight forward.

Kimmage is not paid by Sky.
More distortion again.
I rest my case... :rolleyes:

In extracts from his new book, The Climb, serialised exclusively in The Sunday Times...
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/article1414785.ece

Walsh admitted that he "wouldn't have a clue about power wattage" and other metrics that have been used in analysing Froome's performance.
http://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/david-walsh-the-times-is-not-a-team-sky-mouthpiece-but-article-in-question-was-daft-31397211.html

Walsh has a serious monetary conflict of interest. He's not to be taken seriously.
You have no case.

None of the above say he was paid by Sky to write books.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts