Paul Kimmage

[Avoriaz]

Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

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.

 

[Bronstein]

Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

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.

 

[mrhender]

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.

 

[JimmyFingers]

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.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

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.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Paul Kimmage - Hero

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.

 

[thehog]

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.

 

[Benotti69]

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.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Sounds like you are making excuses for him now, just saying.

 

[thehog]

Re:

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.

 

[JimmyFingers]

Err no, not Walsh.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

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...

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.

 

[JimmyFingers]

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.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

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...

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.

 

[gooner]

Re:

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.

This.

And there hasn't been a desired answer addressing the point made that Kimmage did more on Armstrong than Walsh.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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.

This.

And there hasn't been a desired answer addressing the point made that Kimmage did more on Armstrong than Walsh.

I never posted that Kimmage did more than Walsh on Armstrong.

Walsh continued to go after Armstrong when Armstrong insulted his dead son. That was what made Walsh never give up fighting Armstrong.

 

[thehog]

Re:

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.

Kimmage & Walsh were at one time joined at the hip. The fork in the road came with Sky/Froome/Wiggins.

Murdoch dispatched of Kimmage, pays Walsh to write books on Team Sky which he also owns.

Kimmage held his head high, Walsh not so much, he is a patsy.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

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.

Walsh doesn't need a hand on the hatchet job he is doing on Sky and the revisionism he is promoting on The Program.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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...

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.

You think Walsh wrote the SKy books for free? Really?

He has gone over to the darkside but for free? He at least got some low cost chinarello and some dirty bib shorts for his PR fluff books!

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

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.

This.

And there hasn't been a desired answer addressing the point made that Kimmage did more on Armstrong than Walsh.

I never posted that Kimmage did more than Walsh on Armstrong.

That was directed at the hog.

 

[gooner]

Re: Re:

You think Walsh wrote the SKy books for free? Really?

He has gone over to the darkside but for free? He at least got some low cost chinarello and some dirty bib shorts for his PR fluff books!

Of course he got money but then the response is to the accusation that Sky paid him to do the books.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

You think Walsh wrote the SKy books for free? Really?

He has gone over to the darkside but for free? He at least got some low cost chinarello and some dirty bib shorts for his PR fluff books!

Of course he got money but then the response is to the accusation that Sky paid him to do the books.

Well if Sky/Murdoch did not pay him who did?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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.

Kimmage & Walsh were at one time joined at the hip. The fork in the road came with Sky/Froome/Wiggins.

Murdoch dispatched of Kimmage, pays Walsh to write books on Team Sky which he also owns.

Kimmage held his head high, Walsh not so much, he is a patsy.

Walsh is joined at the hip to Sky/Murdoch till he retires....chaching!

 

[mrhender]

This thread has been seriously derailed.

We have dealt with that for now.

I'll probably do a cleanup later, but meanwhile I suggest you all think twice before hitting the submit button.