Paul Kimmage suspicious of Sky

[ufkacbln]

Sorry, old bean, I have no idea what you're waffling on about, but your grammar and syntax are so appalling it makes comprehension difficult.
Please accept my apologies in advance if English isn't your first language.

It is always nice to see you resort to infantile ranting when you are selectively unable to remember your previous statements

I think it is called being "in denial"

 

[ufkacbln]

His name is Mario Thevis, not George Thevis.

He also said:




I believe that, surprising though it may seem, such people do exist and that almost by definition they are not motivated by greed!

Mario (George was a typo) is sayong the same as my post, I simply chose to expand the point that both the PEDs and tests have a shelf life that is dictated by how quickly the opposition responds

..... and I do believe that there are people out there whose integrity is unquestionable. However whether the cynics out there would believe there testimony is another side to the coin

 

[rich p]

It is always nice to see you resort to infantile ranting when you are selectively unable to remember your previous statements

I think it is called being "in denial"

Ranting?

 

[Noodley]

Mario (George was a typo)

It wasn't a "typo", you got his name wrong.

Lance Armstrong-esque if you ask me...

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Given the background of cycling, it's not surprising that any team that rapidly gains the ascendancy is going to arouse suspicion. This is as true with track cycling as with pro tour teams - remember the French story about ''magic wheels'' and Baugé questioning Kenny about BC training regimes in a press conference. Britain's rise towards the top of the cycling world has been rapid.

At the same time, Kimmage has been largely vindicated vis-à-vis LA and the UCI, and his credit is high. The question is where does he go from here. Does he continue to act for the good of cycling or does he exploit cycling's credibility gap for the sake of his own career? My impression is that he's currently teetering between the two.

I think Brailsford is going to have to recognise that PK can cast a thick cloud of doubt over the Sky team and also, more crucially, that this doubt does more harm than good for cycling in general. Blanking PK for his insinuations won't get Sky anywhere because PK will see it as proof that Sky's got something to hide, and meanwhile it will continue to harm cycling. I think DB is going to have to have a long sit down with PK to find what common ground they share (I'd hope this means a commitment to clean cycling and the ability to believe that the cycling's clean) and to find a way of removing some of those doubts that PK holds.

 

[ufkacbln]

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.

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

You need to make your mind up?

 

[ufkacbln]

It wasn't a "typo", you got his name wrong.

Lance Armstrong-esque if you ask me...

Another one who dismisses Kimmage on one hand, yet promotes him on the other...

Awww poor Uncle Pat says that nasty man Kimmage is picking on him
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-all-ive-done-since-i-became-president-is-fight-doping

It's almost like reading something Lance woulda said.

Now do we accept Kimmage unequivocally when it suits and dismiss him when it doesn't or do we have a realistic debate about reality?

 

[Noodley]

I have been having realistic debates for years, with others who know what they are on about. That excludes you from it as you quite clearly have not a clue. You simply appear to have some form of obsessive cross-thread incomprehension, making connections where there are none and being very very selective in what you choose to quote. Sounds like trolling to me - which was highlighted many dozens of pages and a few threads ago. Or are you attention-seeking to compensate for some deficits elsewhere?

 

[ufkacbln]

I have been having realistic debates for years, with others who know what they are on about. That excludes you from it as you quite clearly have not a clue. You simply appear to have some form of obsessive cross-thread incomprehension, making connections where there are none and being very very selective in what you choose to quote. Sounds like trolling to me - which was highlighted many dozens of pages and a few threads ago. Or are you attention-seeking to compensate for some deficits elsewhere?

Is that a yes or a no then?


Should we:

1. Be listening to Kimmage when he voices suspicion?
2. Ignoring Kimmage when he voices suspicion?
3. As suggested before and dismissed by yourself being realistic about this and actually expecting some sort of proof?

Avoid the answer if you like, but the questions will remain.

 

[jdtate101]

I think DB is going to have to have a long sit down with PK to find what common ground they share (I'd hope this means a commitment to clean cycling and the ability to believe that the cycling's clean) and to find a way of removing some of those doubts that PK holds.

If I were Brailsford, I would open up SKY to other respected cycling journalists, but NOT PK. That way he cannot question SKY's integrity without also questioning his fellow journalists integrity if they say they observed nothing wrong. It will also teach PK that bully boy tactics and trying to strong arm people by slinging mud doesn't work and will not be rewarded.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I think DM's post is spot on really. at the end of the day, whatever he was, whatever he saw and did and however deeply that has embedded his beliefs (prejudices?) Kimmage is now a journalist with a living to make as such. His Armstrong / Postal meal ticket has just expired and he either needs to establish himself as an all round cycling journalist, which with the best will in the world isn't going to be easy for him given the bridges he's burned with the opprobium and negative hyperbole he attaches to the sport OR he needs to set another longrunning doper bandwaggon rolling that he can cash in on.

I think the arms length thing; which seems how Sky and pretty much every pro team in every sport are generally nowadays unless they are playing up to their own well controlled TV channel; just plays into his money making tactics / paranoid delusions / near clairvoyant perspicacity (delete as appropriate).

A mexican stand off will continue between Kimmage and the teams and the UCI. I feel that as time moves him ever further away from being a pro rider in a dirty age to a bitter jpurnalist without friends on the inside as cycling does seem to be making efforts to clean itself up (or if you prefer, dope very much more discretely), he is going to become less and less relevant and I fear he will end up as a David Icke like character making increasingly outlandish comments just to still be visible.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

If I were Brailsford, I would open up SKY to other respected cycling journalists, but NOT PK. That way he cannot question SKY's integrity without also questioning his fellow journalists integrity if they say they observed nothing wrong. It will also teach PK that bully boy tactics and trying to strong arm people by slinging mud doesn't work and will not be rewarded.

Yes, I guess that's a good way of not giving way to the strong arm stuff while being demonstrably open.

 

[ufkacbln]

If I were Brailsford, I would open up SKY to other respected cycling journalists, but NOT PK. That way he cannot question SKY's integrity without also questioning his fellow journalists integrity if they say they observed nothing wrong. It will also teach PK that bully boy tactics and trying to strong arm people by slinging mud doesn't work and will not be rewarded.

Slightly off topic, and will be unpopular and dismissed by some, but there is a relevance.

If you look at the history of War Correspondents there was an issue with censorship, and only what the Government wanted reporting was released. Then came Vietnam and a swathe of independent reporting that was not only revealing, but all of a sudden the good and bad were both reported and events like the My Lai massacre were reported and investigated. After this the censorship returned and again censorship ruled as a backlash

Then came the Falklands and the journalists were "embedded" with the troops. It was questioned whether this was "valid". An article in the Independent is typical of this criticism as the policy extended into more recent conflicts.

As posted before, independent and scrupulous observation may be a way forward, but given the questioning of the value of "embedding" journalists, how do you guarantee thetthe same issues do not occur?

 

[shouldbeinbed]

If I were Brailsford, I would open up SKY to other respected cycling journalists, but NOT PK. That way he cannot question SKY's integrity without also questioning his fellow journalists integrity if they say they observed nothing wrong. It will also teach PK that bully boy tactics and trying to strong arm people by slinging mud doesn't work and will not be rewarded.

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.

 

[Radchenister]

... perhaps I'm confused here, he is still a journalist and not a regulator now?