Paul Kimmage suspicious of Sky

[rich p]

Let me remind you....

When was that article written by Kimmage? It's old news which has been superceded by Wiggins' recent categorical anti-Armstrong statements.

...seems fairly clear that you are stating that Kimmage's concerns are invalid because Wiggins spoke our against
Armstrong.

Hmmm, read this carefully before replying. Kimmage had said that Wiggins didn't speak out against doping anymore but when the post to which I was replying was written, he (Brad - in case you're not keeping up) had done so. Hence the reference to having been superceded. Are you getting it yet?

So are you now stating that this unequivocal dismissal of Kimmage by yourself is invalid now?

Unequivocal dismissal of Kimmage? Nope, sorry, you lost me again but please don't stop trying.
P.S. I hope you'll show as much alacrity and interest in pro-race punditry when the TDU kicks off the new season, as you do in trolling trawling back through very old posts and quoting out of context. Happy New Year.

You need to make your mind up?

 

[slowmotion]

Kind of agree, certainly on the 'two fingers to bully boy proving guilt by innuendo' sentiment but you'd quickly get to the point where the team has neutered the journalists into bland non stories and managed events by being able to revoke their access rights if they cross a line or report something Brailsford and co disapprove of.

I'm no expert at all, but I think PK showed a certain amount of courage in the past as regards doping, particularly in exposing LA. I found his bravery at the the Tour of California news conference particularly impressive....and chilling to see a bullying LA and his sycophantic press and publicity machinery in slick, evil motion. One more time...
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI[/media]

 

[johnr]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/we-did-the-right-thing-with-leinders-says-brailsford
Does that work john?

Thanks

 

[ufkacbln]

....

Could you correct the use of quotes I do not wish to have my user name associated with your standards of posting.

The infantile need to use insults is your issue and the way you have misused the quotes system it appears that I have done so. Please corect this, or if you are unable to do so either ask the moderators to do so or delete the post.

(Edited)

 

[ufkacbln]

Hmmm, read this carefully before replying. Kimmage had said that Wiggins didn't speak out against doping anymore but when the post to which I was replying was written, he (Brad - in case you're not keeping up) had done so. Hence the reference to having been superceded. Are you getting it yet?​

​

​

Which is different from your present stance.....​

​

​

Unequivocal dismissal of Kimmage? Nope, sorry, you lost me again but please don't stop trying.

Try reading your own posts then...it will become clear, if you don't understand your own post then I can't help"

P.S. I hope you'll show as much alacrity and interest in pro-race punditry when the TDU kicks off the new season, as you do in trolling trawling back through very old posts and quoting out of context. Happy New Year.

​

I love that anything that you are uncomfotable with or that is insufficiently sycophantic to your agenda is "trolling", as for the TDU... if Kimmage comments then I will certainly revisit this thread

 

[Noodley]

Ah right, got you now. You have no interest in pro cycling. That makes sense.

And if you'd care to look at my first reply to this thread you would see that I stated Kimmage has mostly been correct in his suspicions. I am open to him being correct in this instance.

 

[jdtate101]

Kind of agree, certainly on the 'two fingers to bully boy proving guilt by innuendo' sentiment but you'd quickly get to the point where the team has neutered the journalists into bland non stories and managed events by being able to revoke their access rights if they cross a line or report something Brailsford and co disapprove of. If Sky went for open doors it would have to be absolute openness for anyone to metaphorically wander in and poke about, otherwise you just give PK the ammo he needs to wage a perpetual media conspiracy therory war against the closed shop of teams and Journo's he's not part of.

But what company or business in the world would just let anyone wonder round anytime they liked? What if PK wanted to sit in on sensitive meetings that discussed riders medical issues (such as Dowset's hemophilia or something more personal) if PK was refused entry for confidentiality reasons, he would just cry foul. Full access does not mean a license to pry into private matters or trade secrets. Using Cunobelin's analogy above of embedded war journalists, they have mis-reported and given sensitive information away many times in the past sometimes leading to operations being changed or cancelled, sometimes directly putting lives at risk. What's to say someone like PK won't also give something away. This is bike racing, but it's also a business with many people's livelihoods bound up in it. You have to wonder what level of info would PK be satisfied with, for instance, does he want access to both sky pro cycling / British cycling company financial records as well as the riders personal bank accounts so he can see if any dodgy deals are going on? That would be both illegal as well as highly immoral......where does it end?

 

[ufkacbln]

Ah right, got you now. You have no interest in pro cycling. That makes sense.

Your interpretation....

And if you'd care to look at my first reply to this thread you would see that I stated Kimmage has mostly been correct in his suspicions. I am open to him being correct in this instance.

Excallent, thank you for clarifying this..... that was not your previous stance.[/quote]

 

[rich p]

Could you correct the use of quotes I do not wish to have my user name associated with your standards of posting.

The infantile need to use insults is your issue and the way you have misused the quotes system it appears that I have done so. Please corect this, or if you are unable to do so either ask the moderators to do so or delete the post.

(Edited)

Insults? Is that the 4th or 5th time you have referred to my reasoned replies to you, as infantile/pram-toy interface rants?

I really don't know I bother trying to reply sensibly but I supose it's my inherent good nature and I'll give it another shot.
If you read (and comprehend,) most of the posts on this thread, you will see that most of the posters believe that Kimmage is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. It's not the posters who are being inconsistent, it's Kimmage.
In actual fact in real life, most people are inconsistent but your trawling back through my old posts to prove that I have been, is verging on the obsessive and stalking. Whilst it's quite flattering, I really think you should take a deep breath and re-focus your forensic analysis on something more worthwhile.

 

[User169]

But what company or business in the world would just let anyone wonder round anytime they liked? What if PK wanted to sit in on sensitive meetings that discussed riders medical issues (such as Dowset's hemophilia or something more personal) if PK was refused entry for confidentiality reasons, he would just cry foul. Full access does not mean a license to pry into private matters or trade secrets. Using Cunobelin's analogy above of embedded war journalists, they have mis-reported and given sensitive information away many times in the past sometimes leading to operations being changed or cancelled, sometimes directly putting lives at risk. What's to say someone like PK won't also give something away. This is bike racing, but it's also a business with many people's livelihoods bound up in it. You have to wonder what level of info would PK be satisfied with, for instance, does he want access to both sky pro cycling / British cycling company financial records as well as the riders personal bank accounts so he can see if any dodgy deals are going on? That would be both illegal as well as highly immoral......where does it end?

Well PK's done it before with Garmin and seemed to come away satisfied, so I don't think the problems you raise (although all valid) can be insurmountable. Frankly though it seems slightly lazy journalism to me - if PK thinks there really is a problem with Sky, he should go and find the evidence as Walsh did with Armstrong.

 

[Radchenister]

Get a room you two !

--------------------------------

My thoughts exactly JDTate101: whilst tracking the issues over the summer I ended up hitting the 'Like' button for BikePure and Dr Michael Ashenden (who's factual information is fascinating) on Facebook in order to keep up to date with issues. You'll be aware that LeMond and his gang have had their own 'Change Cycling Now' summit and there are even off shoot pages on Facebook like the one called 'Greg LeMond for UCI President'.

Whilst on the whole I support these folks in principle, I have seen them work themselves into an insular, entrenched and confrontational mindset on occasions; some of the comments are so extreme that they make you wonder why some of them are involved in cycling and I've even found myself having some sympathy for McQuaid when he hit back querying what LeMond had been doing for cycling for a couple of decades or so.

Unveiling the Pharmstrong thing has been like a divorce in the family for cycling - currently feelings are still running high and this is to be expected I suppose but I would hope that balance will be found and that self destructive bickering can eventually translate into open critical self analysis and an improved culture and procedures.

At the moment Paul Kimmage is still in fight mode, clearly still continuing to 'right the wrongs' that he perceives to be all around him, he might have a point but equally he may be seeing monsters in the shadows, perhaps out of engrained habit or through the stress of pending court cases (?). I do have some sympathy for his position but in my view he is in danger of hampering the sport from moving on if his accusations are speculative, who is next in the PK gun sites?

I like reading Dave Brailsford's quotes, they are straight, honest, balanced, self-reflective at times but underlined by professionalism ... I am a bit biased as a fan of course but they are the here and now, PK is currently tarring Sky with the brush of yesteryear; it appears he's a little irritated because Wiggins didn't want him popping up at the breakfast table ... hardly a surprise that this stance came from Wiggins and totally in character IMHO.

 

[Alun]

I can't believe that Kimmage thinks he has some sort of right to be embedded with Sky, or any other team. He then makes unfounded allegations out of spite because he's not granted full access. Can you imagine what would happen, if he turned his attentions to football and turned up at Old Trafford, telling Alex Ferguson that he's going to be living with them for the next few months and attending all meeting and training sessions?

 

[shouldbeinbed]

But what company or business in the world would just let anyone wonder round anytime they liked? What if PK wanted to sit in on sensitive meetings that discussed riders medical issues (such as Dowset's hemophilia or something more personal) if PK was refused entry for confidentiality reasons, he would just cry foul. Full access does not mean a license to pry into private matters or trade secrets. Using Cunobelin's analogy above of embedded war journalists, they have mis-reported and given sensitive information away many times in the past sometimes leading to operations being changed or cancelled, sometimes directly putting lives at risk. What's to say someone like PK won't also give something away. This is bike racing, but it's also a business with many people's livelihoods bound up in it. You have to wonder what level of info would PK be satisfied with, for instance, does he want access to both sky pro cycling / British cycling company financial records as well as the riders personal bank accounts so he can see if any dodgy deals are going on? That would be both illegal as well as highly immoral......where does it end?

isn't this a bit of an about face from your earlier post where you suggested journo's other than PK be granted access? *confused now*

Your post quoted is exactly the point I was making, they would be so controlled as to what they could see that they would neutered by managed events and only able to produce bland non stories.

 

[Radchenister]

isn't this a bit of an about face from your earlier post where you suggested journo's other than PK be granted access? *confused now*

Your post quoted is exactly the point I was making, they would be so controlled as to what they could see that they would neutered by managed events and only able to produce bland non stories.

Hang on - doesn't he write for the Daily Mail ?!

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I'm no expert at all, but I think PK showed a certain amount of courage in the past as regards doping, particularly in exposing LA. I found his bravery at the the Tour of California news conference particularly impressive....and chilling to see a bullying LA and his sycophantic press and publicity machinery in slick, evil motion. One more time...
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI[/media]

Couldn't agree more, but that ship has now sailed, in no small part thanks to his campaigning, so he seems to be casting around for another bad guy to keep his profile up/money coming in.

Ita the Donal MacIntyre type scenario, once he'd done 1 TV series of undercover exposes, his face is known and theres no second bite at infiltrating the football holigan gangs and care homes etc so he has had to reinvent himself as a front of house presenter.

With the aggressive way he's gone about his journalism and the bridges he's burned along the way I don't think PK has the connections to reinvent himself as a run of the mill sport/cycling journalist & I fear he'll become a parody of what he once was.