Brailsford's 'banning' of Paul Kimmage

BikingBernie

The following is taken from The Cozy Beehive:

Team Sky Says Goodbye To Kimmage : Award winning journalist Paul Kimmage was to be embedded in Team Sky for the Tour in order to see and report how clean (or not) cycling at the highest levels have become. We now know that Bradley Wiggins did not want Kimmage snooping around so British cycling's Performance Director Dave Brailsford told him thank you, goodbye. So much for transparency. If they have "nothing to hide", why not let him be part of their team?

http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2010/07 ... -2010.html

I have tried to follow up the story but have found nothing to confirm that Kimmage was due to be 'embedded' in Team Sky, nor relating to the supposed change of heart. Anyone know of the original sources for these stories?

takethehighroad

I don't know about this but the ITV podcast last night said that Sky were being transparent, and they'd let Jill and the cameras onto the bus for the team talk in the morning.

RichN95.

I don't blame them. I've played team sports my entire adult life. It's an environment where the norm is to have banter, gossip, non PC jokes etc - all good for team spirit and morale. Having a journalist around all of the time means you'd have to keep your guard up most of the time, meaning you can't relax and enjoy yourself as much. And that can't be good.

You can make it a doping story if that's your agenda, but it's not.

Kléber

Two points to note on this:
- Sky really like to be in control of their media message. I've given up following the team's twitters because it's so controlled it reads like the corporate message of a bank, not a collection of riders on the road
- Imagine Kimmage sitting down for an interview with Barry. "What elephant, I can't see any elephant in room Paul" says the Canadian. Kimmage would have asked some awkward questions here.

A pity it didn't happen though and it suggests Sky's just a bit too paranoid compared to Garmin last year.

mroli

Its a bad idea. Look at the trouble that American general got into thanks to having a journalist embedded with him. Basically they are going to look for a story - even if there isn't one, they will make one from what they've got. Also having Kimmage embedded would make Sky v unpopular - eg with RS and Lance - and Brad will need his friends in the mountains.

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

You can make it a doping story if that's your agenda, but it's not.

In so much as having Kimmage 'on board' would help to boost the credentials of the team, the story does have a 'doping' angle to it. However, what I was really looking for is the original source for the stories. Are they perhaps buried behind Murdoch's The Times paywall?

Monty Zoncolan

Kimmage was definitely to have been given access to the team, and write a series of pieces for the Sunday TImes through the tour. I did wonder why there was nothing from him Sunday just past.

The common interest in Sky/News International newspapers is clear, so there can't have been an issue in that.

RichN95.

BikingBernie wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

You can make it a doping story if that's your agenda, but it's not.

In so much as having Kimmage 'on board' would help to boost the credentials of the team, the story does have a 'doping' angle to it. However, what I was really looking for is the original source for the stories. Are they perhaps buried behind Murdoch's The Times paywall?

I remember Matt Rendell or Ned Boulting mentioning that Kimmage would be with Sky on their podcast. That was a while back though.

Michael Barry has a column in the Times during the Tour, if you want to chuck that bit of info into the mix.

rockmount

Maybe they thought it would be better to have a cycling journo.

stagehopper

Kimmage went training with Wiggins in the Pyrenees before the Tour and interviewed him at length - appeared in the Sunday Times on 27th June.

The source for Cozy Beehive's story is a thread started by "Dr. Maserati" on the cyclingnews forum (Clinic section).

Greggyr

They're pro cyclists riding the biggest race...I can't believe he was there in the first place

tarquin_foxglove

RichN95 wrote:

Having a journalist around all of the time means you'd have to keep your guard up most of the time, meaning you can't relax and enjoy yourself as much. And that can't be good.

Following the Rolling Stone/Gen. McChrystal article there was some discussion that it may be the end of journalists being 'embedded' in organisations.

As it wouldn't be approved by the organisation unless it was stage managed to ensure there would be no bad publicity but stage managing the process means it wouldn't be worth doing for the journalist.

shipley

Maybe the don't trust Kimmage....... lots of people don't

stagehopper

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Having a journalist around all of the time means you'd have to keep your guard up most of the time, meaning you can't relax and enjoy yourself as much. And that can't be good.

Following the Rolling Stone/Gen. McChrystal article there was some discussion that it may be the end of journalists being 'embedded' in organisations.

As it wouldn't be approved by the organisation unless it was stage managed to ensure there would be no bad publicity but stage managing the process means it wouldn't be worth doing for the journalist.

The history of embedded journalism is one of stage managed information. Been equated to cheerleading by many critics particularly in regard to war reporting. You're shown what they want to show you and things you see by "mistake" you're not allowed to report. The Rolling Stone article was an aberration to the general rule.

Abdoujaparov

stagehopper wrote:

The history of embedded journalism is one of stage managed information. Been equated to cheerleading by many critics particularly in regard to war reporting. You're shown what they want to show you and things you see by "mistake" you're not allowed to report. The Rolling Stone article was an aberration to the general rule.

If Sky let Kimmage 'embed' himself within the team for the tour he might not get any strong news out of it, but there should still be some great material for features.

Having said that, anyone see last night the three or four minutes Eurosport showed from Columbia's team bus as they discussed the forthcoming stage? They came across as very unprofessional, with only a vague idea of the parcours (even a disagreement on whether there was an uphill finish!) and what their very basic tactics should be.

In last year's tour coverage, there was a similar fly-on-the-wall piece from Astana's team bus as Bruyneel set out what they should expect and what they needed to do that day. They were similarly clueless and I know that each team wouldn't want to give too much away even though the footage was being broadcast after the stage, but still...there are ways of covering things up without looking like complete retards! (excuse the political incorrectness)

DaveyL

Yes, I thought the DS (is it Holm?) didn't come across well. As you say, it may have been different from the usual, given the presence of the cameras, but he looked pretty inept and ineffectual.

iainf72

I don't think it's unusual. Someone pointed me at those Cervelo videos a while ago and it's literally like "erm yeah, lets ride hard guys"

Still, sometimes not knowing can be an advantage.

thomasmc

Abdoujaparov wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

The history of embedded journalism is one of stage managed information. Been equated to cheerleading by many critics particularly in regard to war reporting. You're shown what they want to show you and things you see by "mistake" you're not allowed to report. The Rolling Stone article was an aberration to the general rule.

If Sky let Kimmage 'embed' himself within the team for the tour he might not get any strong news out of it, but there should still be some great material for features.

Having said that, anyone see last night the three or four minutes Eurosport showed from Columbia's team bus as they discussed the forthcoming stage? They came across as very unprofessional, with only a vague idea of the parcours (even a disagreement on whether there was an uphill finish!) and what their very basic tactics should be.

In last year's tour coverage, there was a similar fly-on-the-wall piece from Astana's team bus as Bruyneel set out what they should expect and what they needed to do that day. They were similarly clueless and I know that each team wouldn't want to give too much away even though the footage was being broadcast after the stage, but still...there are ways of covering things up without looking like complete retards! (excuse the political incorrectness)

It may have been nervousness but it had to be the worse team talk ever! Didnt even seem to know the riders names :?

LangerDan

thomasmc wrote:

It may have been nervousness but it had to be the worse team talk ever! Didnt even seem to know the riders names :?

I know - I was expecting him to stop mid-sentence and say "Hang on, this isn't the Saxo bus....."

Zabels disembodied voice was a little creepy. Why didn't they want us to see him? Was he sitting on a chair and stroking a white cat? "No Herr Cavendish - I expect you to vin"

dennisn

Abdoujaparov wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

The history of embedded journalism is one of stage managed information. Been equated to cheerleading by many critics particularly in regard to war reporting. You're shown what they want to show you and things you see by "mistake" you're not allowed to report. The Rolling Stone article was an aberration to the general rule.

Having said that, anyone see last night the three or four minutes Eurosport showed from Columbia's team bus as they discussed the forthcoming stage? They came across as very unprofessional, with only a vague idea of the parcours (even a disagreement on whether there was an uphill finish!) and what their very basic tactics should be.

In last year's tour coverage, there was a similar fly-on-the-wall piece from Astana's team bus as Bruyneel set out what they should expect and what they needed to do that day. They were similarly clueless and I know that each team wouldn't want to give too much away even though the footage was being broadcast after the stage, but still...there are ways of covering things up without looking like complete retards! (excuse the political incorrectness)

I think maybe you expect way too much from these people because the are PRO CYCLIST'S. I've been in at the start of many a (construction) project with a whole raft of PROFESSIONALS and in the beginning it seems to be a bit confusing and without direction. However, as things progress questions and strategies start to become more focused and clear. I don't see why cycling would be any different. There is always someone at ANY meeting that didn't realize that the hill was up to the finish and not down.
That's what meetings are for. To clear things up. If everyone knew everything you wouldn't need any team meetings. It's to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Abdoujaparov

iainf72 wrote:

I don't think it's unusual. Someone pointed me at those Cervelo videos a while ago and it's literally like "erm yeah, lets ride hard guys"

Still, sometimes not knowing can be an advantage.

Yep, you don't want to complicate things, but it should be possible to give clear, simple and inspiring instructions to your team. Football managers like Mourinho have got this nailed when talking to people of varying intelligence, but it looks like cycling hasn't got there yet.

But it makes you think there's a gap in the market for Sky's marginal gains - that is, if they're capable of delivering them...

DaveyL

dennisn wrote:

Abdoujaparov wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

The history of embedded journalism is one of stage managed information. Been equated to cheerleading by many critics particularly in regard to war reporting. You're shown what they want to show you and things you see by "mistake" you're not allowed to report. The Rolling Stone article was an aberration to the general rule.

Having said that, anyone see last night the three or four minutes Eurosport showed from Columbia's team bus as they discussed the forthcoming stage? They came across as very unprofessional, with only a vague idea of the parcours (even a disagreement on whether there was an uphill finish!) and what their very basic tactics should be.

In last year's tour coverage, there was a similar fly-on-the-wall piece from Astana's team bus as Bruyneel set out what they should expect and what they needed to do that day. They were similarly clueless and I know that each team wouldn't want to give too much away even though the footage was being broadcast after the stage, but still...there are ways of covering things up without looking like complete retards! (excuse the political incorrectness)

I think maybe you expect way too much from these people because the are PRO CYCLIST'S. I've been in at the start of many a (construction) project with a whole raft of PROFESSIONALS and in the beginning it seems to be a bit confusing and without direction. However, as things progress questions and strategies start to become more focused and clear. I don't see why cycling would be any different. There is always someone at ANY meeting that didn't realize that the hill was up to the finish and not down.
That's what meetings are for. To clear things up. If everyone knew everything you wouldn't need any team meetings. It's to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Did you watch the video, Dennis?

dennisn

DaveyL wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Abdoujaparov wrote:

stagehopper wrote:

The history of embedded journalism is one of stage managed information. Been equated to cheerleading by many critics particularly in regard to war reporting. You're shown what they want to show you and things you see by "mistake" you're not allowed to report. The Rolling Stone article was an aberration to the general rule.

Having said that, anyone see last night the three or four minutes Eurosport showed from Columbia's team bus as they discussed the forthcoming stage? They came across as very unprofessional, with only a vague idea of the parcours (even a disagreement on whether there was an uphill finish!) and what their very basic tactics should be.

In last year's tour coverage, there was a similar fly-on-the-wall piece from Astana's team bus as Bruyneel set out what they should expect and what they needed to do that day. They were similarly clueless and I know that each team wouldn't want to give too much away even though the footage was being broadcast after the stage, but still...there are ways of covering things up without looking like complete retards! (excuse the political incorrectness)

I think maybe you expect way too much from these people because the are PRO CYCLIST'S. I've been in at the start of many a (construction) project with a whole raft of PROFESSIONALS and in the beginning it seems to be a bit confusing and without direction. However, as things progress questions and strategies start to become more focused and clear. I don't see why cycling would be any different. There is always someone at ANY meeting that didn't realize that the hill was up to the finish and not down.
That's what meetings are for. To clear things up. If everyone knew everything you wouldn't need any team meetings. It's to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Did you watch the video, Dennis?

No, but it sounds like some people are fairly disappointed and somewhat taken aback because they are finding out that these hero cyclist, on whose every word they find themselves hanging, don't really have all that much to say and when they do say something they sound like, dare I say it, ordinary people(gasp, swoon). How dare they be ordinary?

DaveyL

You have totally missed the point. Not for the first time. And you don't need to bother with the "Aw shucks, that's what my wife always says" reply.

Pross

ITV had the same with the Sky bus, I commented on it on another thread. It was basically "right protect Brad and G and then if it's all together at the end try to get Eddy up there for the sprint" but came complete with a Power Point presentation. I think in this day and age of radio communication the DS makes decisions on the fly to adapt to what is actually happening which is far more practical as you can't plan a bike race with 200 people in it before it starts. You can say attack on the first hill but what if someone else went at the gun or if there's been a crash just before you were going to attack. I don't see how having Kimmage "embedded" would have provided transparency anyway as if they wanted to do anything dubious they wouldn't do it while he was around and also if he reported it in a Murdoch paper I suspect he'd be signing on next week.

Gazzaputt

Kimmage would find dirt whatever. I could understand if it were true Brad didn't want him there.

iainf72

Gazzaputt wrote:

Kimmage would find dirt whatever. I could understand if it were true Brad didn't want him there.

Indeed, he founds loads of dirt at Garmin last year.

Percy Vera

Kimmage must be disappointed as he turned down an invite onto the RadioShack bus and opted for the Sky bus instead as he heard it had iPads and loads of gizmos.

dennisn

DaveyL wrote:

You have totally missed the point. Not for the first time. And you don't need to bother with the "Aw shucks, that's what my wife always says" reply.

I was responding to "Abdoujaparov's" (and a few others)comment about a meeting not appearing to be up to some standard that these guys seem to have set for Pro Rider meetings. I'm thinking that they expected to see and hear great revelations and strategies
from these riders and coaches and were very disappointed when they found it to be quite mundane and even boring. Gee, sort of like REAL LIFE.

LangerDan

dennisn wrote:

I was responding to "Abdoujaparov's" (and a few others)comment about a meeting not appearing to be up to some standard that these guys seem to have set for Pro Rider meetings. I'm thinking that they expected to see and hear great revelations and strategies
from these riders and coaches and were very disappointed when they found it to be quite mundane and even boring. Gee, sort of like REAL LIFE.

It wasn't the mundanity - it was the fact that the key daily briefing for this multi-million dollar operation seemed quite incompetent. Last year, Cavendish made a big deal of the professionalism of the HTC preparation of the sprints - how the run-in was video'd , analysed by Zabel etc. This would have been a key stage for Cav -yet the team from the management down gave the distinct impression of not being bothered. I've seen better conducted training spin briefings.

Even if most team briefings are not going to reveal the secret of eternal youth or the Third Secret of Fatima, you would make some sort of effort if you'd gone to the trouble of inviting a camera crew on-board.

donrhummy

Personally I have no problem with Sky's decision as riding the tour is hard enough, but having some guy live with you 24/7 during it and recording everything you're doing can be mentally stressful.

However, I'd like to point out that if it had been Radioshack and Lance who'd nixed it at the last minute, a lot of people's responses would have been VERY diff.