# Kimmage Upsets Team Sky



## Hip Priest (27 Jun 2013)

Well, Peter Kennaugh at least.

He posted the following missive on his Twitter feed earlier:



> Well Paul Kimmage today confirmed the fact he is a Waler ! Disrespectful loser


 
What has Kimmage said?


----------



## rich p (27 Jun 2013)

A Waler or a Walter?


----------



## Flying Dodo (27 Jun 2013)

Kimmage said similar things about Wiggins in 2009 when he got 4th place in the TdF. I think Kimmage seems to think everyone is still doping. In the last few years, on several occasions he's said things similar to


> I'm not saying that to imply anything, but I think it's weird.


----------



## Hip Priest (27 Jun 2013)

rich p said:


> A Waler or a Walter?


 

Walter, sorry. Typo.


----------



## Hip Priest (27 Jun 2013)

User said:


> - When Edvald arrived the team had no heard of Chris Froom. He was number 83 in the Tour de France the year before. Brailfords ways are inscrutable. I'm not saying that to imply anything, but I think it's weird. "Small improvements" is a mantra for Team Sky, but I do not think it characterizes the development of Chris Froom on the team, says Kimmage.


 
Cheers for the info.

I suppose Sky would answer that Froome has suffered from a series of debilitating illnesses in recent years, from which he has only recently recovered. This, combined with the Sky training programme, has turned him into a potential tour winner.


----------



## rich p (27 Jun 2013)

If Kimmage could come up with something more than mudslinging at Sky, he could salvage some rapidly diminishing credibility. He seems increasingly to be a cross between journo looking for one last big story and a jilted lover.
BTW, any news on what happened to the Kimmage Defence Fund since that geezer ran off with it?


----------



## zizou (27 Jun 2013)

Boasson Hagen might not have quite lived up to his early promise but he's not been a total dud either and already has a better palmares than most. His problem over the last few years is that he's not got the speed to compete with Cavendish, Greipel etc so that has left the sort of races that Sagan, Gilbert, Boonen, Cancellera have excelled at. And to beat them he's going to have to get it tactically right too, which seems to be his biggest weakness. Plus there is the whole shitting problem he has, that cant help 

btw can you imagine what Kimmage would be going on like if his results were at all comparable to Merckx?!


----------



## jdtate101 (27 Jun 2013)

If EVBH wasn't happy he would move teams. It's as much his choice as the team management if or not he stays. Kimmage is increasingly sounding like a bitter and twisted one trick pony. He's alienating everyone with his negativity and seeing conspiracy everywhere, like a paranoid. True, he was spot on with Lance, but one swallow does not make a summer, and trying to tar every person who is successful as a doper will just cause him to be ostracised and sidelined from the sport as a whole.
I do hope someone takes him down a peg or two, preferably a few of his fellow journo's.


----------



## lukesdad (28 Jun 2013)

You lot have changed your tune on kimmage a bit lol he was always a loser.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 Jun 2013)

I think it's a legitimate question to ask, as it is of any rider who hasn't fully met his early promise - long-time members here will know EBH was one of my favourites from way back and while he has done respectably, he has not become the kind of force I had thought he might. The only problem is that there probably aren't any simple answers. He might do better as the leader of a smaller team, but that wouldn't address what zizou quite rightly identifies as his tactical problems.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (28 Jun 2013)

User said:


> *PORTO VECCHIO (TV2.no):* Det var en Team Sky-pressekonferanse utenom det vanlige to dager før det braker løs i Tour de France.​*Porto Vecchio (TV2.no):* There was a Team Sky press conference outside of the usual two days before showtime at the Tour de France.
> Sky-sjef Dave Brailsford blir sjelden målløs, men da den anerkjente sykkeljournalisten Paul Kimmage spurte hva som hadde skjedd med Edvald Boasson Hagens talent, ble Brailsford tydelig ukomfortabel.​Sky boss Dave Brailsford is rarely speechless, but when the renowned cycling journalist Paul Kimmage asked what had happened to Edvald Boasson Hagen's talent, Brailsford was clearly uncomfortable.
> – Jeg trodde han skulle bli den neste Eddy Merckx da jeg så ham i 2009, sier Kimmage til tv2.no.​-
> I thought he was going to be the next Eddy Merckx when I saw him in 2009, said Kimmage to tv2.no.
> ...


Ta for the translation work.


----------



## rich p (28 Jun 2013)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I think it's a legitimate question to ask, as it is of any rider who hasn't fully met his early promise - long-time members here will know EBH was one of my favourites from way back and while he has done respectably, he has not become the kind of force I had thought he might. The only problem is that there probably aren't any simple answers. He might do better as the leader of a smaller team, but that wouldn't address what zizou quite rightly identifies as his tactical problems.


The question about EBH is legitimate, if a little barbed, but the he's still throwing mud at Froome with no basis apart from that he's done well.


----------



## rich p (28 Jun 2013)

lukesdad said:


> You lot have changed your tune on kimmage a bit lol he was always a loser.


He was a winner when he was digging out evidence about Armstrong but now is basing his 'campaign' on innuendo. He could regain our respect if he dug out some even circumstantial evidence about Sky, Froome and Wiggins being on the juice.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 Jun 2013)

rich p said:


> The question about EBH is legitimate, if a little barbed, but the he's still throwing mud at Froome with no basis apart from that he's done well.


 
Oh, I agree on that.


----------



## lukesdad (28 Jun 2013)

There is nothing complicated about the EBH sky relationship or for that ,the Thomas sky relationship. Offer the money they'll do as you ask.

The question they need to ask themselves is how long will they be content to sit in a team that concentrates on grand tours? Probably as long as the large salary is there would be my guess. Cav of course came to a different conclusion.


----------



## Crackle (28 Jun 2013)

lukesdad said:


> You lot have changed your tune on kimmage a bit lol he was always a loser.


Nope, I never liked Kimmage, never. I briefly admired him for flying in the face of cycling's Omerta but it turns out that flying in the face of...insert anything......is all he does. Walsh on the other hand....


----------



## lukesdad (28 Jun 2013)

Crackle said:


> Nope, I never liked Kimmage, never. I briefly admired him for flying in the face of cycling's Omerta but it turns out that flying in the face of...insert anything......is all he does. Walsh on the other hand....


Funny I don't seem to remember you mentioning this, when the Kimmage fanboys were drinking his health,of course it may of slipped my mind but to be honest i can't be a*sed to look.


----------



## dragon72 (28 Jun 2013)

I liken Kimmage to some of my hard-left socialist friends. Well-meaning, but so passionate about justice that they've turned into a bit of an @r$ehole.


----------



## Crackle (28 Jun 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Funny I don't seem to remember you mentioning this, when the Kimmage fanboys were drinking his health,of course it may of slipped my mind but to be honest i can't be a*sed to look.


Yeah but you don't remember many things at your age though.


----------



## lukesdad (28 Jun 2013)

Crackle said:


> Yeah but you don't remember many things at your age though.


True, now what were we on about ?


----------



## Noodley (28 Jun 2013)

I like Kimmage, I don't like myself for liking him but I like him none-the-less. But he can be a class A doofus. And he is a class A doofus a lot. But I still like him. I dinnae agree with most of what he says nowadays but I am a nobber...


----------



## threebikesmcginty (29 Jun 2013)

Noodley said:


> I like Kimmage, I don't like myself for liking him but I like him none-the-less. But he can be a class A doofus. And he is a class A doofus a lot. But I still like him. I dinnae agree with most of what he says nowadays but I am a nobber...



Errrr...think I'll read that again later when I've had a couple of beers.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (29 Jun 2013)

Noodley said:


> I like Kimmage, I don't like myself for liking him but I like him none-the-less. But he can be a class A doofus. And he is a class A doofus a lot. But I still like him. I dinnae agree with most of what he says nowadays but I am a nobber...





threebikesmcginty said:


> Errrr...think I'll read that again later when I've had a couple of beers.



Ok gotcha!


----------



## oldroadman (29 Jun 2013)

PK just needs to stop being a one trick merchant and start being a journalist again, he is quite good at that. Sadly he has become almost a conspiracy theorist, anyone who rides well must be using something, therefore all winners are doing it, they are covering up some scandal. Very sad.
I wonder how long before any new UCI president gets "Kimmaged"?


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Jun 2013)

rich p said:


> A Waler or a Walter?


In the case of 
*Edvald Boasson Hagen it could be a whaler?*


There is a strong tradition in Norway


----------



## BJH (30 Jun 2013)

This is a none story

If EBH isnt happy he will leave.

If Kimmage has any point to make about Sky he should say it, but this is nonsense. He would have a point if Sky had failed to win the Tour last year and not going into this year with the favourite. Based on their track record so far how could you question what DB has achieved.


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Jun 2013)

BJH said:


> . Based on their track record so far how could you question what DB has achieved.


 
Easily!

The question is always about the politics within the team, as well as the results.


----------



## rich p (30 Jun 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Easily!
> 
> The question is always about the politics within the team, as well as the results.


It's actually about cycle racing but you have shown no interest in that IIRC


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Jun 2013)

rich p said:


> It's actually about cycle racing but you have shown no interest in that IIRC


 
Wrong - you couldn't acept that people had opinions different to yours!


----------



## ufkacbln (30 Jun 2013)

rich p said:


> It's actually about cycle racing but you have shown no interest in that IIRC


 
It is so very simple.... riders have different abilities and strengths, a single rider is then chsen to lead, and is the point for the team's efforts

If that was unequivocally correct then there would not be changes, however there are countless examples of support riders becoming the lead in other teams, or the decision being changed and the original lead being replaced.

Like any decision in cycling or any other sport it will be questionable whether a rider would have performed better if given the support.


----------



## rich p (30 Jun 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Wrong - you couldn't acept that people had opinions different to yours!


Like I said many times, I'll start listening to you when you show any, even vague, interest in the pro cycle racing scene! Until then it's just white noise


----------



## fozy tornip (30 Jun 2013)

Kimmage has earned the right to say what he likes, in my book.
Thoroughly enjoyed Wiggo's achievements last year; unqualified enjoyment. But should we learn some years hence that Sky's incremental accretion of minor gains - or whatever it's called - was cover for a systematic, subtle program of doping using as yet undetectable performance enhancers, I won't be surprised.


----------



## albion (30 Jun 2013)

dragon72 said:


> I liken Kimmage to some of my hard-left socialist friends. Well-meaning, but so passionate about justice that they've turned into a bit of an @r$ehole.


 
I quite dread to think what are your enemies are like.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> Like I said many times, I'll start listening to you when you show any, even vague, interest in the pro cycle racing scene! Until then it's just white noise


 
At least your inability to consider any opinion or discuss anything outside your own small agenda is consistent.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Jul 2013)

fozy tornip said:


> Kimmage has earned the right to say what he likes, in my book.
> Thoroughly enjoyed Wiggo's achievements last year; unqualified enjoyment. But should we learn some years hence that Sky's incremental accretion of minor gains - or whatever it's called - was cover for a systematic, subtle program of doping using as yet undetectable performance enhancers, I won't be surprised.


 
Their history is a little chequered.

He has on occasion questioned their transparency and compared Wiggins with Armstrong which upset the Sky camp,

He was refused the level of access that he wanted, so was that in a fit of pique, or was there something he was genuinely concerned about?

The problem is knowing which is the case


----------



## rich p (1 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> At least your inability to consider any opinion or discuss anything outside your own small agenda is consistent.


True, but then my agenda is pro cycling


----------



## Crackle (1 Jul 2013)

Rich!


----------



## oldroadman (1 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Their history is a little chequered.
> 
> He has on occasion questioned their transparency and compared Wiggins with Armstrong which upset the Sky camp,
> 
> ...


 
Put yourself in the position of team principal. A journalist who is known to have an agenda to "prove" that anyone who is successful is doing something illegal wants "open access" to your team. Where does the access stop? Is he allowed to call riders late at night, turn up at their homes, be on the team bus any time, ride in a team car when he wants? Does he get access to all the management meetings where contracts and rider futures are discussed? Then be able to write about anything he wants, all to "prove" to his satisfaction that either something is wrong or not?
Would any business let that happen, reporters in the boardroom or around at moments of maximum stress?
Then why on earth should a team principal and the staf be subjected to this from someone who has a reputation for having his own agenda, and trying to dig out "facts" that prove his theories?
This would be no different than letting all the idiots who write comments on cyclingnews (they never say from which country) always accusing winners of doping.
Would any sensible team principal expose the riders and staff to such a disruptive and aggravating presence?
Answers are yes or no.


----------



## rich p (1 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> Rich!


I know, I know - I can only offer my sincere apologies!


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> True, but then my agenda is pro cycling


 
That is almost funny!


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Jul 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Put yourself in the position of team principal. A journalist who is known to have an agenda to "prove" that anyone who is successful is doing something illegal wants "open access" to your team. Where does the access stop? Is he allowed to call riders late at night, turn up at their homes, be on the team bus any time, ride in a team car when he wants? Does he get access to all the management meetings where contracts and rider futures are discussed? Then be able to write about anything he wants, all to "prove" to his satisfaction that either something is wrong or not?
> Would any business let that happen, reporters in the boardroom or around at moments of maximum stress?
> Then why on earth should a team principal and the staf be subjected to this from someone who has a reputation for having his own agenda, and trying to dig out "facts" that prove his theories?
> This would be no different than letting all the idiots who write comments on cyclingnews (they never say from which country) always accusing winners of doping.
> ...


 
Therein lies another problem.

When they said no previously he started writing about lack of transparency!

So it is a no-win either way


----------



## BJH (1 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Easily!
> 
> The question is always about the politics within the team, as well as the results.



I disagree, the team set out to win the Tour with a clean rider within 5 years. They have met hat objective. Not one single rider that Sky have signed would not have been aware of that goal, including Cav.

If they are not happy with that, or if they believe they can do better than Froome, if he is indeed the anointed one, they can follow Cav and leave.

DB has nothing to answer at this point. Time will tell if he has made the right decision on Froome, but on form so far this year, it would have been a brave choice to not run with him.

If EBH thinks he isn't progressing, he will leave.


----------



## BJH (1 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Therein lies another problem.
> 
> When they said no previously he started writing about lack of transparency!
> 
> So it is a no-win either way



It's not a no win, Sky are absolutely within their right to refuse to give Kimmage totally unhindered access to their team. This wouldn't happen in any sport you care to name. 
If this was boxing, he would be asking for the equivalent of between rounds interviews.
This is why he has almost turned the doping story on his head and begun to look a little foolish. The no win situation is what PK has put himself in, not Sky. He is in danger of becoming like the local nut job that everyone wants to avoid on the bus.
I say this within the confines of our current knowledge, whereby we are unaware of any allegations against Sky currently that can pass muster. Time will prove that right or wrong.
So just because your a schizophrenic it doesn't mean they are not out to get you, so maybe if you keep saying that all all cycling is doped there's bound to be one come along and make you look correct eventually.


----------



## Crackle (1 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Therein lies another problem.
> 
> When they said no previously he started writing about lack of transparency!
> 
> So it is a no-win either way


We know all this. I'm not sure of your point, really I'm not. I feel like you're trying to teach me to suck eggs when I read your posts. I'd like to respond but I'm not sure whether you're commenting on pro cycling or our understanding of it. Mostly I feel it's the latter, so I don't bother. Correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (1 Jul 2013)

I've had my eye off the ball recently: did Walsh produce a detailed account of his time with Sky yet? I remember seeing a couple of his comments just before a Sunday Times article was to be published but as I'm never going to get behind their paywall I was waiting till someone else covered it. I appear to have missed that.


----------



## ufkacbln (1 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> We know all this. I'm not sure of your point, really I'm not. I feel like you're trying to teach me to suck eggs when I read your posts. I'd like to respond but I'm not sure whether you're commenting on pro cycling or our understanding of it. Mostly I feel it's the latter, so I don't bother. Correct me if I'm wrong.


 
It is simple, someone posts a statement, and someone replies.

How you take that is entirely your interpretation


----------



## Crackle (1 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> It is simple, someone posts a statement, and someone replies.
> 
> How you take that is entirely your interpretation


Of course it isn't but you know that, so I'll leave it there.


----------



## Crackle (1 Jul 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> I've had my eye off the ball recently: did Walsh produce a detailed account of his time with Sky yet? I remember seeing a couple of his comments just before a Sunday Times article was to be published but as I'm never going to get behind their paywall I was waiting till someone else covered it. I appear to have missed that.


I was wondering the same and there is a site which has a lot of stuff documented and searchable but I can't recall it. Any idea?


----------



## User169 (1 Jul 2013)

oldroadman said:


> Put yourself in the position of team principal. A journalist who is known to have an agenda to "prove" that anyone who is successful is doing something illegal wants "open access" to your team. Where does the access stop? Is he allowed to call riders late at night, turn up at their homes, be on the team bus any time, ride in a team car when he wants? Does he get access to all the management meetings where contracts and rider futures are discussed? Then be able to write about anything he wants, all to "prove" to his satisfaction that either something is wrong or not?
> Would any business let that happen, reporters in the boardroom or around at moments of maximum stress?
> Then why on earth should a team principal and the staf be subjected to this from someone who has a reputation for having his own agenda, and trying to dig out "facts" that prove his theories?
> This would be no different than letting all the idiots who write comments on cyclingnews (they never say from which country) always accusing winners of doping.
> ...



Well he managed it with Garmin, so all of those problems are solvable. The issue I have with it is that it's fundamentally bad journalism. If you're on the inside, it seems to me inevitable that you undermine the integrity of what you're reporting. I'm surprised that Walsh has gone down this route - he seemed to be doing fine with "proper" journalism.


----------



## Crackle (1 Jul 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> Well he managed it with Garmin, so all of those problems are solvable. The issue I have with it is that it's fundamentally bad journalism. If you're on the inside, it seems to me inevitable that you undermine the integrity of what you're reporting. *I'm surprised that Walsh has gone down this route* - he seemed to be doing fine with "proper" journalism.


 
I wondered that. For years he was an outcast within pro-cycling, I thought maybe he was just enjoying being back in the crowd as a normal journalist. I'm prepared to cut him some slack though.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (1 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> I was wondering the same and there is a site which has a lot of stuff documented and searchable but I can't recall it. Any idea?


Not me, unfortunately, but I expected to hear some of the fallout and there was either none (i.e. no story) or I simply missed it. I think I've visited the site you're probably thinking about but I was just following a link from on here, probably on the Lance Armstrong thread that reached over 100 pages, and I don't remember which one it was.


----------



## fozy tornip (1 Jul 2013)

I'm thinking it goes something like this.
For decades British cyclists were denied their deserved success by cheating Johnny Foreigner and his dope, during which time Paul Kimmage was a lone voice doggedly calling out the scuzzers, a Rosa Parks of cycling journalism, a hero.
Now cycling's clean, British riders are cleaning up because they're inherently more capable, gritty, steely, nuggety, dedicated, strong, redoubtable, courageous, just better - see any one of AiS's 20,000 posts - than Johnnny Foreigner.
Kimmage raising his eyebrows at this strips him of his Rosa Parks status and reveals him to be the David Icke of cycling journalism.
Have I missed anything?


----------



## smutchin (2 Jul 2013)

Noodley said:


> I like Kimmage, I don't like myself for liking him but I like him none-the-less. But he can be a class A doofus. And he is a class A doofus a lot. But I still like him. I dinnae agree with most of what he says nowadays but I am a nobber...


 
This sums it up for me.

His tireless campaigning seems to have taken its toll on his mental faculties, but he's still on the side of righteousness.


----------



## Globalti (8 Jul 2013)

Having recently read Walsh's book and Kimmage's a couple of years ago I've formed the opinion that Walsh especially is a paranoid obsessive. Once the subject of obsession is achieved, what do those kinds of people do? They move on to the next, real or imagined.


----------



## Hont (8 Jul 2013)

I think they both need to sit down with Steve Peters and get their inner chimps under control. I recall a radio interview with Walsh just after the Armstrong USADA decision and his emotions were so out of control he couldn't get the words out quick enough.


----------



## oldroadman (8 Jul 2013)

Hont said:


> I think they both need to sit down with* Steve Peters* and get their inner chimps under control. I recall a radio interview with Walsh just after the Armstrong USADA decision and his emotions were so out of control he couldn't get the words out quick enough.


 
Best book I have ever read. The man is brilliant, and if you look at the success he has had with some of the more "fragile" people he has dealt with, no doubting the proof is there. I wonder what he makes of PK - we shall never know. But the word paranoia springs to mind. They are all out to get him! It must be true because David Icke says so.


----------

