Kimmage and the UCI
Comments
-
skylla wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Personally I'm getting a little uneasy about the direction in which the Walsh-Kimmage love-in could be going - and how it could be used as a platform for a host of personal agendas.
There's already hints of social media going all pseudo McCarthy, with demands to pick sides, promote the 'Fund' and/or donate to it - wiith the intimation that if you dont, then you're pro-UCI - or against 'us' - or just plain cowards. You can already see some media scrambling to avoid labelling or adverse commentary, and you can already see the start of journos being singled out for censure for having written pro-Lance, or anti-his critics over the years.
Meanwhile there's an awful lot of back-slapping going on in some quarters.
I think this is going to get ugly - and I dont just mean for Armstrong, Bruyneel and the UCI.
No one is forcing you to donate or choose sides! Me thinks this is exactly the pressure required for UCI reform. If there's no public outrage, nothing will happen.
I am not referring to myself - who would see any benefit in trying to force little old me? But over social media I can already see examples of this emotional blackmail being used on journos, riders etc.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:skylla wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Personally I'm getting a little uneasy about the direction in which the Walsh-Kimmage love-in could be going - and how it could be used as a platform for a host of personal agendas.
There's already hints of social media going all pseudo McCarthy, with demands to pick sides, promote the 'Fund' and/or donate to it - wiith the intimation that if you dont, then you're pro-UCI - or against 'us' - or just plain cowards. You can already see some media scrambling to avoid labelling or adverse commentary, and you can already see the start of journos being singled out for censure for having written pro-Lance, or anti-his critics over the years.
Meanwhile there's an awful lot of back-slapping going on in some quarters.
I think this is going to get ugly - and I dont just mean for Armstrong, Bruyneel and the UCI.
No one is forcing you to donate or choose sides! Me thinks this is exactly the pressure required for UCI reform. If there's no public outrage, nothing will happen.
I am not referring to myself - who would see any benefit in trying to force little old me? But over social media I can already see examples of this emotional blackmail being used on journos, riders etc.
Well, that's the modern digital age, new technology and 21st century binary slapping for little old you - and me (social media, what's that!?)0 -
skylla wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Personally I'm getting a little uneasy about the direction in which the Walsh-Kimmage love-in could be going - and how it could be used as a platform for a host of personal agendas.
There's already hints of social media going all pseudo McCarthy, with demands to pick sides, promote the 'Fund' and/or donate to it - wiith the intimation that if you dont, then you're pro-UCI - or against 'us' - or just plain cowards. You can already see some media scrambling to avoid labelling or adverse commentary, and you can already see the start of journos being singled out for censure for having written pro-Lance, or anti-his critics over the years.
Meanwhile there's an awful lot of back-slapping going on in some quarters.
I think this is going to get ugly - and I dont just mean for Armstrong, Bruyneel and the UCI.
No one is forcing you to donate or choose sides! Me thinks this is exactly the pressure required for UCI reform. If there's no public outrage, nothing will happen.
What UCI reform, exactly? As has been pointed out by other posters, there is no structure to most of this current move other than to get Hein and Pat out. Where is the "cut-off" point for this night of long knives - the board? All the committees (which are usually made up of a large number part-timers who aren't all part of the Aigle prawn sandwich brigade)? Who is
And then who replaces them? If this is to be sorted out, the UCI needs someone experienced in running (and cleaning up) similar structures - not just some guy on a bike we happen to like. Supposing Tchmil gets the gig - and he is angling for it)? Or Savio? Holczer? Outside of Sylvia Schenk, I think the last person to stand (well until Hein chopped him down) for a UCI top slot was a Spanish race promoter. Not sure how that would have been better.
If Hein and Pat are ousted without some coherent replacement plan, it will be just like sharks teeth - even if the front row is gone, more of the same will just pop up and bite us in the ass again.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
LangerDan wrote:skylla wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Personally I'm getting a little uneasy about the direction in which the Walsh-Kimmage love-in could be going - and how it could be used as a platform for a host of personal agendas.
There's already hints of social media going all pseudo McCarthy, with demands to pick sides, promote the 'Fund' and/or donate to it - wiith the intimation that if you dont, then you're pro-UCI - or against 'us' - or just plain cowards. You can already see some media scrambling to avoid labelling or adverse commentary, and you can already see the start of journos being singled out for censure for having written pro-Lance, or anti-his critics over the years.
Meanwhile there's an awful lot of back-slapping going on in some quarters.
I think this is going to get ugly - and I dont just mean for Armstrong, Bruyneel and the UCI.
No one is forcing you to donate or choose sides! Me thinks this is exactly the pressure required for UCI reform. If there's no public outrage, nothing will happen.
What UCI reform, exactly? As has been pointed out by other posters, there is no structure to most of this current move other than to get Hein and Pat out. Where is the "cut-off" point for this night of long knives - the board? All the committees (which are usually made up of a large number part-timers who aren't all part of the Aigle prawn sandwich brigade)? Who is
And then who replaces them? If this is to be sorted out, the UCI needs someone experienced in running (and cleaning up) similar structures - not just some guy on a bike we happen to like. Supposing Tchmil gets the gig - and he is angling for it)? Or Savio? Holczer? Outside of Sylvia Schenk, I think the last person to stand (well until Hein chopped him down) for a UCI top slot was a Spanish race promoter. Not sure how that would have been better.
If Hein and Pat are ousted without some coherent replacement plan, it will be just like sharks teeth - even if the front row is gone, more of the same will just pop up and bite us in the ass again.
That's not how these things generally work out, right? If there's some historical precedence, it would be a disorganised public outrage that provides pressure onto those that can initiate a reform to do so. Are you saying we need to organise ourselves, compose a charter and start the long march onto Geneva?
For what it's worth, I think the UCI needs to split up as currently there is a huge conflict of interest in organising races and taking the money, writing the rule book, organise PED testing and analysing said tests. It's an old institution that needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century!0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Even in Switzerland?
I doubt most irishmen could afford to get p!ssed there, let alone fight.
But only because the Irish have to buy rounds of pints for the stringy dutch first
**************************************************
www.dotcycling.com
***************************************************0 -
LangerDan wrote:If Hein and Pat are ousted without some coherent replacement plan, it will be just like sharks teeth - even if the front row is gone, more of the same will just pop up and bite us in the ass again.
Maybe get rid of them, replace them with someone who's job it is to transform the UCI into something fit for purpose.
I hate to say it, but the one name that springs to mind as someone who could probably do it is Cuddly Bob Stapleton.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Personally I'm getting a little uneasy about the direction in which the Walsh-Kimmage love-in could be going - and how it could be used as a platform for a host of personal agendas.
There's already hints of social media going all pseudo McCarthy, with demands to pick sides, promote the 'Fund' and/or donate to it - wiith the intimation that if you dont, then you're pro-UCI - or against 'us' - or just plain cowards. You can already see some media scrambling to avoid labelling or adverse commentary, and you can already see the start of journos being singled out for censure for having written pro-Lance, or anti-his critics over the years.
Meanwhile there's an awful lot of back-slapping going on in some quarters.
I think this is going to get ugly - and I dont just mean for Armstrong, Bruyneel and the UCI.
If anything it demonstrates the life of a Jorno. What ever you print you shoudl be accountable for it and stand by your work. In Kimmages case it's cuases huge amount of support for stuff he has been saying for years is finally being taken more seriously. Same applies to jornos who have writen attacks on spoepl who had had a anti lance drum to bang. It should all be aired out.
Investigative Journalism is at an all point low because of the time and money it takes to get a story out. People who do put in the time and publishers who support it shoudl be rewarded. Hell of a way to go yet.0 -
I see the point your making about accountability. Kimmage and Walsh have their names on articles published in the Times, ST, L'Equipe etc - that carries accountability. However I'm still wary of witch-hunts. It doesnt take much for the pitchforks and flaming torches to come out and that's never healthy.
As social media is changing the face of the way in which news and opinion is published and disseminated, the challenge is that there's little or no accountability in this area. Bloggers and tweeters - little apparent accountability. Pseudonym/anonymous accounts - none whatsoever.0 -
iainf72 wrote:LangerDan wrote:If Hein and Pat are ousted without some coherent replacement plan, it will be just like sharks teeth - even if the front row is gone, more of the same will just pop up and bite us in the ass again.
Maybe get rid of them, replace them with someone who's job it is to transform the UCI into something fit for purpose.
I hate to say it, but the one name that springs to mind as someone who could probably do it is Cuddly Bob Stapleton.
I think Stapleton would be a good choice - respected in both mens and womens' cycling,doesn't appear to have any "baggage", knows the business and rich enough not to be distracted by sh!tty little bribes. He' d certainly be a more suitable choice than some of the other names touted in the past (Millar (David and Robert), Le Mond, Vaughters..)'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
To be fair there are lots of good causes to bring out the pitch forks when it involves journalism..... :P
This is why stories that Kimmage wrote about years ago that have been coming to light with 1st hand expirence needs to be recognised & supported. This doesn't mean you have to be a fan of Kimmage. I'm not a huge fan of him but he doesn't deserve what the UCI are trying to serve him.
I'm supraised the Sunday Times doesn't put more weight into this. He could be a good coop for them. Also an oppotunity to prove that they arn't all a**eholes in the journo world0 -
skylla wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I wonder if Kimmage will illegally check McCaid's voicemail to get an advantage...
Something about this whole Kimmage Walsh mutual blow doesn't sit entirely right with me.
Are you talking conspiracies? witch hunt?
I just think excessive black slapping for these two defending themselves against the SLAPP legal/libel tactic to keep people quiet is a bit much when you consider the two journalists either work or worked for a firm which was one of the biggest users of said tactic. Furthermore, there's almost certainly some kind of 'omerta' with regard to journalists doing things illegally to get a story.
Walsh gets all arsey when it doesn't suit his mate, but if it suits his boss...0 -
^^ I sound like some weirdo obsessive anti-news international.
I'm not especially, but I can see plenty of parallels and I don't like it.0 -
I think you re on pretty thin ice suggesting that Kimmage and Walsh were involved in phone hacking. Other than saying it was wrong (and I admit I don't know if they did so), what more could they do?
They re sports reporters, not political or opinion commentatorsWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
ddraver wrote:I think you re on pretty thin ice suggesting that Kimmage and Walsh were involved in phone hacking. Other than saying it was wrong (and I admit I don't know if they did so), what more could they do?
They re sports reporters, not political or opinion commentators
Not saying they did.
I bet they knew it went on.
100% for Walsh.
If not they're bad journalists.
It's the cancer of journalism and journalists like them should speak out. Or are they worried they'll lose their jobs and fail to find one, apart from some weirdo namby pamby 'clean' paper like the Guardian, which probably isn't even that 'phone tapping' free, only they talk a good game?
See where I'm coming from?
You can see how it goes.
"I first walked into the newsdesk. These guys were pulling exclusive after exclusive out of the bag. I had no idea how they did it. I kept plowing on, calling my sources, working the angle. I was never on the front or back page. Only a tiny column on page 42. But when the x story bloke, the editor came over to me. He said he had some things to show me.
"I'd heard guys talking about it in the pub. Stories of "1234" passwords and intercepting voicemail. I couldn't believe it at first. Guys on arrival to the desk would receive the latest number of a celeb. I never got those numbers.
"I walked into the editor's office. His desk was covered in postit notes of mobile phone numbers, 4 digits and famous people's names. John Terry, John Prescot, Johnathan Vaugn. And that was just the Johns. He handed me the postit of Pat McCaid. He suggest I dial the number and listen to the voicemail. His voice was serious, but made out what he was doing was light. Easy. Without consequence. 'it'll make you like those guys back there' he said, and he pointed to the back page of his newspaper copy lying around. 'That will be you soon son'.
"I went back to my desk and sat there, staring at the postit in my hand. Was I really going to do this??...
"The next thing I knew, I was already into the voicemail......"
A familar tone?0 -
Well they might have known it was going on (but I doubt it, I reckon that was restricted to the celebrity/gossip/otherwise hateful tabloid trash), but if you re suggesting that they hacked the UCI, I think YOU need to stop watching The Wire!
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
The problem is that they make demands on clean cyclists to 'speak out' about Armstrong and then make insinuating about how 'disappointed' they are when the don't comply to their own agenda (note their comments about Wiggins in particular). In reality these cyclists just want to get on with their job and not bother themselves with some they weren't involved in, know little about and happened ten years ago. Just like DW & PK with News International. They both favour a truth and reconciliation commission (as it may give gossip and recrimination), but I don't remember either volunteering for Leveson. Surely a Chief Sports writer at a major News international title could have offer some valuable insight.ddraver wrote:I think you re on pretty thin ice suggesting that Kimmage and Walsh were involved in phone hacking. Other than saying it was wrong (and I admit I don't know if they did so), what more could they do?
They re sports reporters, not political or opinion commentators
In summary, they make demands on cyclists that they have already failed to meet themselves.Twitter: @RichN950 -
ddraver wrote:Well they might have known it was going on (but I doubt it, I reckon that was restricted to the celebrity/gossip/otherwise hateful tabloid trash), but if you re suggesting that they hacked the UCI, I think YOU need to stop watching The Wire!
No. But I don't like the hypocracy.
I'm tempted to start a Kimmage style attack on Walsh untill he lets me listen in on every single phonecall he makes to make sure he's not phone-hacking, since you just can't trust journalists anymore.
It's the only way I'll know if what I'm reading is genuine and honest.0 -
who's Pat McCaid?
And to suggest Kimmage and Walsh should remain schtum on doping in cycling because they didn't whistleblow on phone hacking (assuming they even knew it was going on) is laughable.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
The problem is that they make demands on clean cyclists to 'speak out' about Armstrong and then make insinuating about how 'disappointed' they are when the don't comply to their own agenda (note their comments about Wiggins in particular). In reality these cyclists just want to get on with their job and not bother themselves with some they weren't involved in, know little about and happened ten years ago. Just like DW & PK with News International. They both favour a truth and reconciliation commission (as it may give gossip and recrimination), but I don't remember either volunteering for Leveson. Surely a Chief Sports writer at a major News international title could have offer some valuable insight.ddraver wrote:I think you re on pretty thin ice suggesting that Kimmage and Walsh were involved in phone hacking. Other than saying it was wrong (and I admit I don't know if they did so), what more could they do?
They re sports reporters, not political or opinion commentators
In summary, they make demands on cyclists that they have already failed to meet themselves.
This is pretty much the way I'm heading on this...0 -
They are investigative journalists FFS . Dear god - there are finally some chinks of light and people are ready to slam the door shut already.0
-
Well, i hear you Rick... But the same could be said about every journalist everywhere. We'd never have a newspaper again!
Rich, I think we re talking about different things and I agree that they re going too far with Sky because they would nt supply Kimmage with the moon on a stick that he wanted. But so far with Armstrong they re being proved right. But either way, that is irrelevant to what McQuaid, Verbruggen and the UCI are trying to do, which is to scare people in to not answering difficult questionsWe're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
bartman100 wrote:They are investigative journalists FFS . Dear god - there are finally some chinks of light and people are ready to slam the door shut already.
It's not black & white, that's all.
They're not some kind of heros. Kimmage was in a privilidged position that his paper and readership wasn't that fussed about Armstrong, so he could peddal his own line.
I don't like the mass blow-idol online, and I don't like the idea of giving him cash.
I can see it's a way to register protest against the UCI as a fan without avoiding the sport entirely, but he's not a bloody saint.
He's a journo.
I'm not sure Kimmage added much value to the Armstrong thing anyway. He was very anti-him and he gave a few riders the odd platform to say their piece against him, but that's about it. Calling him a 'cancer' of the sport when Armstrong returned is all good fun, but it didn't actually do much.0 -
-
Rick Chasey wrote:bartman100 wrote:They are investigative journalists FFS . Dear god - there are finally some chinks of light and people are ready to slam the door shut already.
It's not black & white, that's all.
They're not some kind of heros. Kimmage was in a privilidged position that his paper and readership wasn't that fussed about Armstrong, so he could peddal his own line.
I don't like the mass blow-idol online, and I don't like the idea of giving him cash.
I can see it's a way to register protest against the UCI as a fan without avoiding the sport entirely, but he's not a bloody saint.
He's a journo.
I'm not sure Kimmage added much value to the Armstrong thing anyway. He was very anti-him and he gave a few riders the odd platform to say their piece against him, but that's about it. Calling him a 'cancer' of the sport when Armstrong returned is all good fun, but it didn't actually do much.
'He's a journo' - your point? Kimmage is no angel. And?...........
Who do you want Rick? Who are your disinfectants for the ungodly cess-pit that is pro-cycling? Why not rattle off the names of the next 10 who have been prepared to put their neck on the line? I understand it's cool to tow a different line, but is it hard to understand why some people are revelling in the joy that finally something seems to be happening? A snowball that is gathering pace.
Maybe pro-cycling just breeds archly cynical fans. Shame.0 -
bartman100 wrote:
Maybe pro-cycling just breeds archly cynical fans. Shame.
I did nt think that was even in doubt....We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
Think there could be a reason for that?0
-
Well, quite. Just a shame to see folk rounding on Walsh & Kimmage so early. Not saying they shouldn't be scrutinised. I just believe strongly they deserve our support. I admire Wiggins and Walsh - the two don't have to be mutually exclusive.Richmond Racer wrote:Think there could be a reason for that?0 -
Not rounding on them.
Like I said, just the mass blow-idol online doesn't sit comfortably with me for those reasons.
I guess it's no coincidence most of the biggest blowers are American.
For sure, Kimmage stuck to his guns when others didn't and good for him.
It's also pretty bad that the UCI are bullying people like him into keeping shtum.
That's where I sit.0 -
'pretty bad'? understatement!
Fair enough. I guess I'm just angrier than you.0 -
I dont agree at all with what the UCI are doing. But this doesnt mean that I always approve of the way Kimmage operates. As others have said, Kimmage gets miffed beyond belief and behaves like a petulant child when he doesnt get everything he demands.
I dont like the way he's using the newly-discovered wonders of Twitter and the new eager armada of people falling over themselves to be part of some inner sanctum with him and Walsh, as a new launchpad for his accusations away from the UCI business.
But he was correct about Armstrong so he must be correct about anyone else he points the finger at, right?0
