Kimmage and the UCI
Comments
-
bartman100 wrote:
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?
It's not really a case of rounding on Walsh and Kimmage themselves, more the perception people have of them. Many seem to think that they are white knights here to save cycling. They aren't. They don't give a toss about cycling. They just see it as a sport to use for their own ends. They are journalists and, like all journalists they are only interested in a story and the image of being crusaders for truth. That's why they want cyclists to speak out - so they have a headline. And cycling also has a section of followers who will acknowledge their crusading (even if it was Pierre Ballester who actually did all the investigating) and hail them as heroes - you don't get that in cricket or golf.
Kimmage wrote some really patronising tweets about David Millar and how he was a little naive but doing OK - but don't forget that Millar is a big influence on lots of young cyclists, led a team which has vocally and successfully committed to clean cycling, sat on WADA committees and grassed up Saunier Duval. He has already done more for clean cycling than any amount of press conference grandstanding will ever do.
Remember that many of those who claim to want clean cycling are actually quite happy for it to be dirty. There are no heroes. Everyone has a self-serving agenda.
(Also, right now, Kimmage will be delighted that the UCI is suing him and they will both hate Daniel Coyle).Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:bartman100 wrote:
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?
It's not really a case of rounding on Walsh and Kimmage themselves, more the perception people have of them. Many seem to think that they are white knights here to save cycling. They aren't. They don't give a toss about cycling. They just see it as a sport to use for their own ends. They are journalists and, like all journalists they are only interested in a story and the image of being crusaders for truth. That's why they want cyclists to speak out - so they have a headline. And cycling also has a section of followers who will acknowledge their crusading (even if it was Pierre Ballester who actually did all the investigating) and hail them as heroes - you don't get that in cricket or golf.
Kimmage wrote some really patronising tweets about David Millar and how he was a little naive but doing OK - but don't forget that Millar is a big influence on lots of young cyclists, led a team which has vocally and successfully committed to clean cycling, sat on WADA committees and grassed up Saunier Duval. He has already done more for clean cycling than any amount of press conference grandstanding will ever do.
Remember that many of those who claim to want clean cycling are actually quite happy for it to be dirty. There are no heroes. Everyone has a self-serving agenda.
(Also, right now, Kimmage will be delighted that the UCI is suing him and they will both hate Daniel Coyle).
Well, as mentioned, pro-cycling fans have a right to be cynical. But this is off the scale! Someone on this thread mentioned that it's not all black and white - quite so. You paint it black, black and all black. There are things journalists can do that people from within cannot - and vice versa.
I agree David Millar is refreshingly outspoken, articulate and has the best of intentions. But to suggest that Kimmage and Walsh don't care about cycling and only have their own interests at heart - it doesn't bear any scrutiny whatsoever.
If Kimmage only cared for his own ego and place in history, would he have written Rough Ride and spat so copiously in the soup? Or would he more likely have stuck his nose up LA's arse as most others did.
Why the chip on shoulder for journalists? Were you once busted by the Cardiff Echo?0 -
He wrote that as his calling card to kick start a journalism career. Mediocre cyclist has crap career wouldn't have cut it as a book (which is what 90% of that book actually is)bartman100 wrote:If Kimmage only cared for his own ego and place in history, would he have written Rough Ride and spat so copiously in the soup?
Here's another question. If Walsh and Kimmage are great crusading investigative journalists, name me one investigative story that they have done outside cycling in the last decade? Or do they not rock the boat elsewhere as those sports are more important to the Sunday Times?Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
He wrote that as his calling card to kick start a journalism career. Mediocre cyclist has crap career wouldn't have cut it as a book (which is what 90% of that book actually is)."bartman100 wrote:If Kimmage only cared for his own ego and place in history, would he have written Rough Ride and spat so copiously in the soup?
Here's another question. If Walsh and Kimmage are great crusading investigative journalists, name me one investigative story that they have done outside cycling in the last decade? Or do they not rock the boat elsewhere as those sports are more important to the Sunday Times?[/quote][/quote][/quote]
This all seems to be welling from a seemingly bottmless pit of sourness. Again - why the obvious hatred for journalists?
I've not said they are 'great crusading journalists' just that they deserve support not sniping.0 -
bartman100 wrote:I've not said they are 'great crusading journalists' just that they deserve support not sniping.
That's fine. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking they give a damn about cycling.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:bartman100 wrote:I've not said they are 'great crusading journalists' just that they deserve support not sniping.
That's fine. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking they give a damn about cycling.
If you back that up with a shred of evidence or semblance of a logical / credible argument, I'll join you in the church of the cynic.0 -
If they cared about the sport, they would write about it. But they don't unless there's a doping angle. Contrast with someone like Matt Rendell, who writes doping stories and books like his Pantani one, but also covers more positive aspects as well.bartman100 wrote:RichN95 wrote:bartman100 wrote:I've not said they are 'great crusading journalists' just that they deserve support not sniping.
That's fine. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking they give a damn about cycling.
If you back that up with a shred of evidence or semblance of a logical / credible argument, I'll join you in the church of the cynic.Twitter: @RichN950 -
This is all interesting....to a point..although the point is becoming "less" as it goes on. Do most of us want some sort of UCI reformation. The answer appears to be yes...will Kimmage or Walsh or both bring this about? Probably not unless they have a big smoking bazooka. Without wishing to inflame any UKIP supporters, what does the rest of Europe want? Is there a massive desire for reform from them and are they willing to push too......or are we simply relieving ourselves into the wind?0
-
It's precisely because they care that they choose to write about doping.
Rendell is good. But he doesn't have the back story of Kimmage - he wasn't witnessing the culture first hand. I don't see why Kimmage's stuck record on doping should be used as a stick to beat him with. Thank god he has been such a thorn in the side.
As for Walsh, he has written extensively on all sports, including cylcing, with reference to doping and without.0 -
Crusading investigative journos= great
Authors that are informed and care= great
Any fajita combo of the two= great
Now find me any in the last 40 years or more that have actually brought down....or caused seismic shifts at the top of any international SGB.0 -
bartman100 wrote:It's precisely because they care that they choose to write about doping.
Rendell is good. But he doesn't have the back story of Kimmage - he wasn't witnessing the culture first hand. I don't see why Kimmage's stuck record on doping should be used as a stick to beat him with. Thank god he has been such a thorn in the side.
As for Walsh, he has written extensively on all sports, including cylcing, with reference to doping and without.
So its not about earning money...its about them caring. Right, glad that's cleared up.0 -
MrT wrote:Crusading investigative journos= great
Authors that are informed and care= great
Any fajita combo of the two= great
Now find me any in the last 40 years or more that have actually brought down....or caused seismic shifts at the top of any international SGB.
Individually? I'm quite sure there are none. But I don't think it has ever been DW or PKs stated aim to 'single handedly bring down the UCI' - that would justifiably lead to claims of ego and self-interest.
Now as for Travis Tygart.......0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:bartman100 wrote:It's precisely because they care that they choose to write about doping.
Rendell is good. But he doesn't have the back story of Kimmage - he wasn't witnessing the culture first hand. I don't see why Kimmage's stuck record on doping should be used as a stick to beat him with. Thank god he has been such a thorn in the side.
As for Walsh, he has written extensively on all sports, including cylcing, with reference to doping and without.
So its not about earning money...its about them caring. Right, glad that's cleared up.
F*cks sake :roll: There really are some miserable, cynical, embittered people on this forum.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
If they cared about the sport, they would write about it. But they don't unless there's a doping angle. Contrast with someone like Matt Rendell, who writes doping stories and books like his Pantani one, but also covers more positive aspects as well.bartman100 wrote:RichN95 wrote:bartman100 wrote:I've not said they are 'great crusading journalists' just that they deserve support not sniping.
That's fine. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking they give a damn about cycling.
If you back that up with a shred of evidence or semblance of a logical / credible argument, I'll join you in the church of the cynic.
Absolutely.0 -
Everyone acts in self-interest, sometimes this interest aligns with that of lots of other people, sometimes only a few.0
-
Woah. There's some deeply ingrained cynicism here that even Swarfega isn't going to shift....Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
Rick Chasey wrote:RichN95 wrote:
If they cared about the sport, they would write about it. But they don't unless there's a doping angle. Contrast with someone like Matt Rendell, who writes doping stories and books like his Pantani one, but also covers more positive aspects as well.bartman100 wrote:RichN95 wrote:bartman100 wrote:I've not said they are 'great crusading journalists' just that they deserve support not sniping.
That's fine. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking they give a damn about cycling.
If you back that up with a shred of evidence or semblance of a logical / credible argument, I'll join you in the church of the cynic.
Absolutely.
So Rick, if you had to redact either lovely happy positive Matt Rendell or boring Paul Kimmage from the history of cycle reportage - who would it be? And which would have the more positive impact on cycling in general?0 -
-
Ok, you won me over. PK and DW are cynical, money grabbing $hits who care not a jot for cycling.Rick Chasey wrote:Depends what you want out of your sport.0 -
bartman100 wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:bartman100 wrote:It's precisely because they care that they choose to write about doping.
Rendell is good. But he doesn't have the back story of Kimmage - he wasn't witnessing the culture first hand. I don't see why Kimmage's stuck record on doping should be used as a stick to beat him with. Thank god he has been such a thorn in the side.
As for Walsh, he has written extensively on all sports, including cylcing, with reference to doping and without.
So its not about earning money...its about them caring. Right, glad that's cleared up.
F*cks sake :roll: There really are some miserable, cynical, embittered people on this forum.
You can think of it that way. Or alternatively - to use a phrase of yours - you can think of it as some of us in the church of the sceptic-cycnic (it's a range) and others such as yourself are in the church of the sanctity of Walsh and Kimmage's crusades.
Luckily this forum has room for all faiths
0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:bartman100 wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:bartman100 wrote:It's precisely because they care that they choose to write about doping.
Rendell is good. But he doesn't have the back story of Kimmage - he wasn't witnessing the culture first hand. I don't see why Kimmage's stuck record on doping should be used as a stick to beat him with. Thank god he has been such a thorn in the side.
As for Walsh, he has written extensively on all sports, including cylcing, with reference to doping and without.
So its not about earning money...its about them caring. Right, glad that's cleared up.
F*cks sake :roll: There really are some miserable, cynical, embittered people on this forum.
You can think of it that way. Or alternatively - to use a phrase of yours - you can think of it as some of us in the church of the sceptic-cycnic (it's a range) and others such as yourself are in the church of the sanctity of Walsh and Kimmage's crusades.
Luckily this forum has room for all faiths
Sorry if this came across a bit personal. No offence intended. Just an important issue thats all. I'm certainly no wide-eyed naive; just feel a debt of gratitude to PK that others clearly don't. I'll leave alone now.0 -
-
I wouldn't open with that one Rick.Rick Chasey wrote:Who here's given him some cash?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Who here's given him some cash?
Not yet, but will do.
I won't actually be giving Kimmage himself any cash, but I'll contribute to his defence fund. I'll do it out of principle, not because I think he's some sort of saint, though if he got to savage them in the court then I'd be quite happy.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
Rick Chasey wrote: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?
Jesus
Youre a head hunter FGS. Surely one of them never told a lie to get a name, embelished the salary to get a CV or referral?
Changed a CV, used a false name, or email address. stole candidate records and started their own business. Every industry has bad eggs
"i know youve not hit your target sunny thats the third month in the row, let me help you, here are the records that the new bloke brought with him. Pretend youre someone elese from a different firm and see if you can get this filled. That quarterly trip to La Manga could include you this time.
I couldnt believe what i was doing but i was going to lose my job, my girlfriend and it was this or Estate Agency. I didnt want to work on Sunday.........."0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:You can think of it that way. Or alternatively - to use a phrase of yours - you can think of it as some of us in the church of the sceptic-cycnic (it's a range) and others such as yourself are in the church of the sanctity of Walsh and Kimmage's crusades.
Luckily this forum has room for all faiths
This is sort of it in a nutshell really (for me anyway). There's a whole clutch of anti-Armstrong/UCI followers out there and they have their own heroes, just Armstrong was to others. And those heroes must not be questioned. Everything is so polarised in the minds of many that objective thought has gone out of the window.
Let's say McQuaid and Verbruggen are ousted from the UCI. That will be 'Mission Accomplished' for them. The successor will come in and they will be praised as great reformers and new age will be heralded. But the sport will actually remain largely unchanged, the new guy will face the same problems and make the same compromises - but no-one will point this out as that's someone else's story.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Errrr... Mr Ghost, a quick word in your ear... :-/Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
-
RichN95 wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:You can think of it that way. Or alternatively - to use a phrase of yours - you can think of it as some of us in the church of the sceptic-cycnic (it's a range) and others such as yourself are in the church of the sanctity of Walsh and Kimmage's crusades.
Luckily this forum has room for all faiths
This is sort of it in a nutshell really (for me anyway). There's a whole clutch of anti-Armstrong/UCI followers out there and they have their own heroes, just Armstrong was to others. And those heroes must not be questioned. Everything is so polarised in the minds of many that objective thought has gone out of the window.
Let's say McQuaid and Verbruggen are ousted from the UCI. That will be 'Mission Accomplished' for them. The successor will come in and they will be praised as great reformers and new age will be heralded. But the sport will actually remain largely unchanged, the new guy will face the same problems and make the same compromises - but no-one will point this out as that's someone else's story.
Yup best to never try and change anything. its all a waste of time :roll:0 -
0
-
RichN95 wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:You can think of it that way. Or alternatively - to use a phrase of yours - you can think of it as some of us in the church of the sceptic-cycnic (it's a range) and others such as yourself are in the church of the sanctity of Walsh and Kimmage's crusades.
Luckily this forum has room for all faiths
This is sort of it in a nutshell really (for me anyway). There's a whole clutch of anti-Armstrong/UCI followers out there and they have their own heroes, just Armstrong was to others. And those heroes must not be questioned. Everything is so polarised in the minds of many that objective thought has gone out of the window.
Let's say McQuaid and Verbruggen are ousted from the UCI. That will be 'Mission Accomplished' for them. The successor will come in and they will be praised as great reformers and new age will be heralded. But the sport will actually remain largely unchanged, the new guy will face the same problems and make the same compromises - but no-one will point this out as that's someone else's story.
Well given the cynicism that met my genuine positive suggestion for standardised, auditable anti doping policies for teams it's hardly surprising that there are people who are convinced that cutting the head off the chicken is all that can be done. It seems cycling is too broken to fix the UCI and the UCI is too broken to fix cycling.
That's a fairly depressing viewpoint, but what the hell, at least we'd get to guillotine McQuaid and Verbruggen.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0
