Kimmage interviews Vaughters

oily sailor

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 232249.ece

Some interesting comments from both sides.

Jez mon

Interesting, Kimmage spent a lot of the time just trying to get Vaughters to admit to doping.

I'm not sure I really like Kimmage's approach TBH, there was a lot of focusing on what JV might or might not have done in the past rather than what he was currently doing.

Yet another helpful item for cycling's public image by Kimmage well done him :roll:

donrhummy

Jez mon wrote:

Interesting, Kimmage spent a lot of the time just trying to get Vaughters to admit to doping.

I'm not sure I really like Kimmage's approach TBH, there was a lot of focusing on what JV might or might not have done in the past rather than what he was currently doing.

Yet another helpful item for cycling's public image by Kimmage well done him :roll:

I don't see a problem with that since Vaughters constantly talks about transparency in cycling as very important. If it's so important, and if he expects his cyclists to be transparent with their careers, why can't he do the same? It's the old, "Do as I say, not as I do." And we all know that never works.

mooro

I think it is quite positive actually. Kimmage comes across as any journalist would, trying to get a headline, but reading the whole article it sounds like a breath of fresh air. The true test is how well they do in the tour....

Am I right in thinking that the sweet with words "famous cyclist" is someone from US Postal?

leguape

Mooro wrote:

I think it is quite positive actually. Kimmage comes across as any journalist would, trying to get a headline, but reading the whole article it sounds like a breath of fresh air. The true test is how well they do in the tour....

Am I right in thinking that the sweet with words "famous cyclist" is someone from US Postal?

Any journalist doesn't try to get the headline, that's the sub's job. They try to get the story. Kimmage fails there in the respect that he brings nothing new to the discussion that isn't already out there via his good friend David Walsh.

And with regard to the "famous cyclist" he uses the same tactics as Walsh - circumstantial and suggestive writing masquerading as fact. It could have been any one of a dozen or so big names in the peleton the way he tells it.

blazing_saddles

Say nothing, say everything. More in LAC.
Obviously doesn't fancy a Greg LeMond moment.
Clever guy, just gets on with running his team.

Monty Dog

I'm getting increasing tired of Kimmage's pious attitude - he takes a 'holier-than-thou' philosophy and yet has profited very well from his own experienced and yet seems hell-bent on denying the priveledge to anyone else. This was regurgatative journalism at it's best servicing his paymasters agenda by not saying anything disparaging about fottball, rugby or cricket and having a pop at Johnny foreigner.

Jez mon

TBH, the bit I really don't like is the first part. When Kimmage is going, "you sure you didn't feel anger" It's just like, you have to have felt the same emotions as I did when I saw others cheat. He's coming across as "I feel bitter about pro cycling, and thats how everyone else should feel"

He's not a bad writer, but has fallen totally out of love with the sport and he just seems to want to put everyone else off pro cycling.

Personally, It does obviously sound like JV took drugs. However, if he did admit to doing so, there would be a huge investigation, and much mud throwing and the UCI would probably ban him from his job.

Kléber

leguape wrote:

It could have been any one of a dozen or so big names in the peleton the way he tells it.

It was probably all of the dozen names

Blame Kimmage if you like for his miserable writing but you risk shooting the messenger. Pro cycling is still riddled with doping and he just points out that since about 1991, the determining factor of the vast majority of races has been doping and the doctor used.

Jez mon

But we already know that. Kimmage just focuses on one thing, he never takes a positive approach, rather than focus on what men like JV can do for the sport, he drags up their previous doping experiences.

Anyone with half a brain can work out that cycling had a huge doping problem in the 90s and early 00s, but that it is slowly getting SLIGHTLY better. All Kimmage is doing is dragging cycling through the gutter once again. [slow hand clapping]

Kléber

Kimmage is just trying to ask a simple question. Former team mate Andreu confessed. Other DSs like Riis confessed, even guys riding today have confessed. It's ok to admit it.

So why can't Vaughters talk straight? He's supposed to be running the cleanest and most open team around and is linked to the American Centre of Cycling Ethics (or what ever it's called) yet ends up using weasel language.

I have a lot of time for what Vaughters is trying to do but you can't escape the past, you can't build an honest future if you clam up about the past. Is JV another proponent of Law of Silence? I don't want to think so but he's not helping himself and the longer he denies things, makes odd statements or leaves people to make their own conclusions, the less firm his moral high ground.

dave_1

Vaughters deals well with Kimmage and practically admits the Ventoux win was something he was not proud of-which I read to be an admission. Good on vaughters. Kimmage is someone he should get on his side. Will David Millar ever speak to kimmage? Hat off to vaughters-I believe him and his team-they will be the bench mark of who is negative for doping int he TDF I think

nolance

Well I thought the article was very good.Yes possibly Paul Kimmage is coming from a biased viewpoint but he is basically painting the picture of how cycling was when Vaughters was riding.He is showing that Vaughters fell foul of the banned list by not allowing him to take any medication for his wasp sting thus preventing him from finishing the Tour.Then the fact that he "probably" doped while with a certain team but felt uneasy doing so,this was the catalyst for his eventual return to cycling with Garmin Chipotle while trying to make a difference to the way cycling is now.Also in Kimmages defence this is the first of 5 articles about Vaughters during the Tour so maybe he will get more upbeat as the race progresses

iainf72

Kléber wrote:

I have a lot of time for what Vaughters is trying to do but you can't escape the past, you can't build an honest future if you clam up about the past. Is JV another proponent of Law of Silence? I don't want to think so but he's not helping himself and the longer he denies things, makes odd statements or leaves people to make their own conclusions, the less firm his moral high ground.

It's a tricky situation really - If he doesn't talk about the past then his riders can get away with doing it too. He could probably do without Dave Z, Tommy D and a few others being smacked with a ban.

I can't warm to the team at all. They don't inspire hatred like Stapletons bunch of cowboys but I don't want them to win anything.

Kléber

Dave_1 wrote:

Vaughters deals well with Kimmage and practically admits the Ventoux win was something he was not proud of-which I read to be an admission.

Exactly, so why not just admit it instead of weasel language? Maybe we'll get an admission later this year, I suppose the PR timing of this would not be good now but PR is one thing, the law of silence is another.

andy_welch

I don't think JV was trying to avoid answering questions about his own doping at all. It was pretty clear from his answers that he had doped and he was happy for the reader to draw whatever conclusions they liked from his answers. I think what he was trying to avoid was being drawn into a corner where he had to accuse another famous rider of doping. Especially as that rider is famous for suing and JV knows that he doesn't have any hard evidence. He's not going to hang himself just to help Kimmage's crusade to expose the state cycling was in ten years ago. Clever bloke.

Cheers,

Andy

RichN95.

I think Vaughters, who seems a very smart guy, would like to confess, but he really has nothing to gain by doing so. On the other hand there are two things against him.

1. A confession leads to US Postal which leads to you know who. Vaughters knows he is a vindicitve man who wields a lot of power and can damage Garmin and bury him under an army of lawyers.

2. Riis, and to a lesser extent Aldag, confessed. Now they are each a DS of a big successful team with an anti-drug program. However, because they cheated in the past, people doubt the credibility of their programs and teams - ironically CSC-Saxo more so than Columbia (I personally think they're on the level). Vaughters has no doubt paid attention to the way the have been received



*Look at that - I used all the new team names*

ddraver

Maybe i misread it but is nt the article supposed to be one of vive - maybe hes got the JV's doping out of the way and he ll carry on ( no seriously.......)

I think Rich makes two valid points there - it would be worse to admit to doping and have all the good work he has done/is doing be ruined or taken away by a vindictive UCI or ASO (and what either would do seems to vary on any given day).Plus if Armstrong started being a dick he could single handedly ruin JV's work simply to show his willy's bigger

i think Cycling need teams like Slipstream and CSC as they are showing that there are genuinly people in the pro cycling world who desire real change and are happy to sacrifice a little success for it - can't imagine Mr L Armstrong or a Mr F Landis ever thinking the same way....

Arkibal

ddraver wrote:

i think Cycling need teams like Slipstream and CSC as they are showing that there are genuinly people in the pro cycling world who desire real change and are happy to sacrifice a little success for it - can't imagine Mr L Armstrong or a Mr F Landis ever thinking the same way....

Just curious, what is the difference between CSC-Saxo and Astana now that the same man is testing both teams???

ddraver

they re making an effort - astana were shown to be liars last year, hopefully they ve learnt

If CSC are similarlly shown I ll feel the same way

don key

It doesn't matter who the whistle blower is or what the subject is they are always vilified and hounded by some or all of the good folk out there who base their moral values mostly on who is paying the wages. I dont know much about Kimmage other than its a street or area to buy on the Monopoly board, its twinned with Crumlin which is what most of his detractors arguments seem to do as they are largely based on an irational hatred of someone who just bugs them. He is not afraid or if he is hides it well. It really isn't easy to run the gauntlet as he has for years now. Every ones argument/stand on an issue changes over the years and I feel what he writes is microscopically investigated by hordes of people who are out to discredit him.This in turn probably propels him on to expose more shambolic behaviour from people who if they didnt represent cycling would be seen as the criminals they really are and do the time that they deserve.

Steve2020

I never understand people criticising Kimmage. Yes, he is bitter. Yes he has been consistently negative about cycling. But what exactly has there been to be positive about over the last ten years? Would you rather he wrote articles about the exciting 2005 TdF when only 9 of the top ten riders were implicated in doping scandals? And why shouldn't he be bitter about cycling after what he experienced?

The testing has been a joke until now and it isnt changing due to technology (despite the crp people love to spout about how the dopers are always one step ahead) but because there is a will to do it. And the will is there because sponsors insist on it now.

We need people like Kimmage and others who make a living reporting on sport to continue to expose the problems.

The people we should be blaming are the journalists and commentators who have been turning a blind eye for the last however many years. Even now we get Phil Liggett's regular 'just a few bad apples' column in Cplus.

Jez mon

But there is a middle ground. Even now when it is getting better, Kimmage focuses on the past rather than what can be done (perhaps he will in future articles though).

His interview style is also somewhat aggressive it would seem, he's not John Sweeny FFS!!

I realize that it's important to reveal doping in sport and that journalists who don't actually help the dopers. However, Kimmage's articles never have ANYTHING positive in them whatsoever, he also wrote a terrible article on the etape. He is so incredibly bitter, but whereas JV is actively attempting to help, PK is just banging on about doping, but coming across as a bitter loser who was never good enough to make it as a top cyclist.

I admit that Phil's "few bad apples" approach is harmful, but so is the approach of Kimmage.

Steve2020

I do know what you mean and the Etape article was disappointing. But overall I do think it is important to have someone out on a limb because the people who swept the problem under the carpet before will be the same people who look at the astana / csc/ columbia / slipstream systems as evidence that everything is alright.

I really want to be positive about cycling's future but we need to recognise that the new systems arent perfect and keeping exposing the people who arent complying and the ways to exploit the system. I just dont think that will happen without people writing about it who come across as negative.

I'm not negative about Cadel Evans but if I was him I would be volunteering to send my blood to ACE or Rasmus Dasgaard every day during the Tour. Same for the other favourites. It seems an obvious move to me so why doesnt, say, procycling ask him why he is not instead of asking him how is build-up is going? It's a bit negative but a lot less negative than another farcical tour.

Plus Kimmage's aggressive questioning in that interview did reveal a lot. JV isnt stupid and the answers he gave told us as much as Riis, Aldag et al have ever told us. I dont really understand his reasons for not confessing but I dont really see what will be gained from him making explicit what is so obviously implicit.

DaveyL

As JV says in his Competitor Radio interview: "I'm quite happy to talk to anyone about this one-to-one, but there are some people out there with a lot of money and a lot of lawyers, and I just need to steer clear of all of that just now."

Vaughters is a very smart and very tough guy. In his own way, he may be tougher than Armstrong, and I wouldn't bet against him succeeding in his mission. He is taking a pragmatic approach to the situation in many ways, and he may well be proven right in the long term in taking such a course.

Steve2020

I do know what you mean and the Etape article was disappointing. But overall I do think it is important to have someone out on a limb because the people who swept the problem under the carpet before will be the same people who look at the astana / csc/ columbia / slipstream systems as evidence that everything is alright.

I really want to be positive about cycling's future but we need to recognise that the new systems arent perfect and keeping exposing the people who arent complying and the ways to exploit the system. I just dont think that will happen without people writing about it who come across as negative.

I'm not negative about Cadel Evans but if I was him I would be volunteering to send my blood to ACE or Rasmus Dasgaard every day during the Tour. Same for the other favourites. It seems an obvious move to me so why doesnt, say, procycling ask him why he is not instead of asking him how is build-up is going? It's a bit negative but a lot less negative than another farcical tour.

Plus Kimmage's aggressive questioning in that interview did reveal a lot. JV isnt stupid and the answers he gave told us as much as Riis, Aldag et al have ever told us. I dont really understand his reasons for not confessing but I dont really see what will be gained from him making explicit what is so obviously implicit.

juggler

The last 2 TdF were ruined by doping scandals. So to say he is concentrating on the past does not make sense. It may not be pleasant reading, but when last year the soon to become winner gets thrown out near the end of the race and the previous year's winner gets the race title taken away after he was exposed as a cheat... it's pretty obvious and expected.

humble

Kimmage's claim to fame is his negative view on doping in cycling - so when he's interviewing someone who may have been involved in that - you bet he's going to come off negative - although I thought that article was more of a spring board for Vaughters to float a nasty tale on that 'famous' rider - he had to know Kimmage spring a woody with that one.

The people getting gigged in this sport are not the bottom feeders - they are the top names - the grand tour gc winners - Heras, Ulrich, Basso, Landis, Rasmussen, (had the TDF it locked up last year), Vinokoruv (Vuelta '06). That some of these folks still hold their titles is fuel on the Kimmage fire - he hates that. DiLuca and Armstrong are a hares breath from being on this list also as is Simoni for that matter and perhaps even Contador and Valverde - as that puerto matter has been swept under the carpet - leaving behind a mess of speculation.

Kimmage doesn't drink the koolaid or wear rose colored glasses.

skavanagh.bikeradar

Going back a few posts, I'd be giving blood before and after stages on the start/finish lines to prove to the world you can definitely trust me, I'm clean. This would put terrible pressure on everyone else if I was say Cadel Evans or Valverde or Cunego at this juncture. Won't happen of course.

Kimmage is bitter about his experiences in cycling and the way cycling has gotten away with it for all this time, but better to have him tripping people up and keeping some pressure on than everyone dropping off to sleep and telling us all about such-and-such's lovely house or car or training run or bike or wind tunnel test etc etc.

Bernie S

Remember when Rough Ride was first published Mquaid was going round telling the media that Kimmage was doing damage to cycling and was a bitter expro and there was no problem with the sport.

As Kimmage says from going around rubbishing him and saying there was no problem, Mcquaid when he became pres of UCI said he was determined to address the problems in the sport

DavidBelcher

Jez mon wrote:

However, Kimmage's articles never have ANYTHING positive in them whatsoever, he also wrote a terrible article on the etape.

Was that the one where he had a downer on the whole thing plus a damn good whinge about ordinary cyclists who just ride their bikes for the fun of it, and was then - I seem to recall - rightly derided as a miserable git by Tony Bell in CW?

David