Kimmage and the UCI

Richmond Racer

Give over and read the point I'm making about him being careful not to prejudice his defence ahead of the Dec hearingv...did I accuse him of attention-seeking in this ? No. It's about him being able to fight the UCI claim without any additional hindrance.

If you want to call that sniping, go ahead. But you might want to check the definition of sniping.

bartman100

"I think Kimmage is getting a little carried away with this new-found freedom of an outlet and an eager audience...."

I'd call that sniping. Why should he tone his tweets down? Assuming that you beleieve he is a trustworthy source (and I do), then let him keep telling the truth. I just don't understand the desire to see him silenced or brought down a peg. Not liking him personally is not good enough. So long as he is not prejudicing his case (and I'm sure he is getting legal advice) then he can can carry on disinfecting as far as I'm concerned.

Richmond Racer

You cite that and dont refer to my follow up post which clarifies my first.

But whatever, yeah Kimmage is the anti-Christ, I hope he never works in this town again, I hope he gets the book thrown at him and McQuaid and Verbruggen get awarded even more than they're pushing for etc etc etc.

If that's what you're adament that I think, go knock yourself out. I'm really not arsed.

RichN95.

Lichtblick wrote:

Kimmage Fund currently stands at

$38,881.99


(.......and 99 cents?..........)

Fund ends Dec 1st

Couldn't he have just used an NUJ lawyer for free? That's what they're there for.

bartman100

fair enough, not trying to wind you up for the hell of it.

PK states that he mant to send the 'pitbull' message as a DM which you don't mention. Like I said, he should feel free to post what he likes and thank god that he can.

Richmond Racer

sigh...if you read my postings properly you'll see that I'm referring to the tweet - which was not meant to be a DM apparently, but was a public one - re mini-McQuaid knowing about Landis's postitive a day before Landis was himself informed. Its THIS kind of claim that just possibly could be used by UCI's lawyers to build a profile of Kimmage as firing off accusations left right and centre - well, according to my partner who's a lawyer and who read the Kimmage twitter feed at the same time.

But enough. I'm not going to indulge you in any more back and forth as you're not even reading my postings properly.

bartman100

Well you were talking about his 'pitbull' lawyer and 'cooling his jets'...but fair enough. I'm not trying to batter people into supporting Kimmage (honest) and I see that you were coming at it from the angle of concern over prejudicing the case.

Lichtblick

RichN95 wrote:

Lichtblick wrote:

Kimmage Fund currently stands at

$38,881.99


(.......and 99 cents?..........)

Fund ends Dec 1st

Couldn't he have just used an NUJ lawyer for free? That's what they're there for.

Kimmage Fund now at

$39,241.99

so that's £360 donated since I last looked.

Go Kimmage! (fwiw...........)

ocdupalais

Lichtblick wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Lichtblick wrote:

Kimmage Fund currently stands at

$38,881.99


(.......and 99 cents?..........)

Fund ends Dec 1st

Couldn't he have just used an NUJ lawyer for free? That's what they're there for.

Kimmage Fund now at

$39,241.99

so that's £360 donated since I last looked.

Go Kimmage! (fwiw...........)

ddraver

:P

OffTheBackAdam

http://youtu.be/_udFWNqymfY

Have a look, before it gets pulled!

LangerDan

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

http://youtu.be/_udFWNqymfY

Have a look, before it gets pulled!

Oh! do pay attention, 007. We did this yesterday.

iainf72 on Thursday 27th wrote:

We done this yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_udFWNqymfY

Lichtblick

RichN95 wrote:

Lichtblick wrote:

Kimmage Fund currently stands at

$38,881.99


(.......and 99 cents?..........)

Fund ends Dec 1st

Couldn't he have just used an NUJ lawyer for free? That's what they're there for.

RichN95, the NUJ does provide free lawyers, as you say. However, their purview is extremely unlikely to extend to defending a case conducted in a Swiss court. For that you need a barrister and hence, loads of money.

The fund now stands at $42,275.14

That would do a couple of days briefing and a few minutes in court, at most. IF that.

rick_chasey

Proof, if we didn't have enough already, that anglophone cycling fans have significant disposable income.

Lichtblick

Rick Chasey wrote:

Proof, if we didn't have enough already, that anglophone cycling fans have significant disposable income.

I have significant such. For example, this week I bought three new shirts @ £60 each.

I don't put money into lawyers' pockets though, no matter how worthy the cause. Sorry. Been there, done that.

ms_tree

What I don't like about the UCI - and I sorry if someone has already posted - is they have set up a company to run races, the create sooo exciting ones (sic) in China then instantly make it World Tour so everyone has to go whether they want to or not. Surely that is (sort of) nepotism? They're are better races that could be included in WT and not this.

iainf72

Really interesting read

http://redkiteprayer.com/2012/09/the-ex ... fools-etc/

Lawyering, it never ceases to amaze me.

Lichtblick

Kimmage Fund now up to $43,810.49

It is incrementing very slowly IMHO. It's nowhere near enough. Add a 0 after the 3, and the fund looks more likely to be enough to contest in a Swiss court.

(I don't know much about Swiss court costs, but every other cost there is on Planet Stupid Prices.)

iainf72

I don't think he needs that much. If you look at Charles RKP article, Kimmage doesn't need to do that much to "win"

Lichtblick

iainf72 wrote:

I don't think he needs that much. If you look at Charles RKP article, Kimmage doesn't need to do that much to "win"

Thanks iain. It makes depressing reading. I've read these lawyer - (how can I put it?) - shite? gobbledegook? things before. The last paragraph: "While Kimmage is listed as the “defendant” in this suit, if he comes to court with sufficient resources to make his case, it may end up being the UCI and its leadership that are on trial. Kimmage stands more than a fighting chance of winning this thing." is a tiny hope that we won't all end up banging our heads on our desks, in despair that

they should be getting on with the ARMSTRONG case, not this Kimmage trial, FFSakes!

iainf72

You can read Walsh's ST article from today here

http://nyvelocity.com/content/features/ ... ent-106569

colint

You can also read the Daily Heil article basically accusing Wiggins on that link as well, which just proves to me what a complete kn ob Kimmage is imho. I just can't stand him, almost makes me want to like the UCI !

Richmond Racer

Kimmage is certainly a divisive character, that's for sure.

Trev The Rev

Richmond Racer wrote:

Kimmage is certainly a divisive character, that's for sure.

People only find him divisive because he has the guts to say what he believes to be the truth.

You should consider the fact that he has been vilified for over a decade by a bunch of liars & cheats for daring to point out that pro cycling is rotten to the core.

No honest clean cyclist should have anything but respect for Kimmage.

Richmond Racer

Trev The Rev wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

Kimmage is certainly a divisive character, that's for sure.

People only find him divisive because he has the guts to say what he believes to be the truth.

You should consider the fact that he has been vilified for over a decade by a bunch of liars & cheats for daring to point out that pro cycling is rotten to the core.

No honest clean cyclist should have anything but respect for Kimmage.

Sorry but enough of the sanctiomonious angle of 'if you dont like Kimmage, you cant be an honest clean cyclist'.

B&*lls to that. Stop trying to turn this forum into a Kimmage worshipping alter.

He is not an easy character and he does divide people - and you dont have to be a Lance disciple not to like everything about him.

I can admire how he stuck to his guns re Armstrong. I can certainly admire his response to the lawsuit from the UCI. I have already written here about my reservations about some aspects of the way he operates - as a cyclist or a team if you dont give him access to everything including your inside leg measurement or what you had for breakfast 10 days ago, he considers it a personal affont. Would I want to spent a week of my life with him? Hell, no - and by the way, that's echoed by people in the cycling world who are speaking up for him nevertheless.

You can worship everything about his - feel free - but dont accuse those who have dont, of not being 'clean' or 'honest'.

This smacks of mirroring the behaviour of the Disciples of Lance.

colint

He is indeed. I just don't get the love in for him. What did he actually do that was so good ? Apart from his book he hasn't revealed or proved anything that we didn't already know. "pro cycling was full full of dopers and the UCI are dodgy". Erm, cheers, we kind of know that.

I'm actually glad to see him dragged court, his tactic is to just whinge and throw as much crap around as possible hoping some of it sticks and he can try and claim some sort of credit. There's no better evidence of that than his Wiggins "article", totally baseless but he'll throw it out there anyway. "Look look, someones improved and they once said something nice about LA !" It reminds me of the blasphemer scene in Life of Brian. At the same time he's happy to kiss ass in interviews with rugby players, tennis players etc and never once mention drugs, even when interviewing a 19 stone winger who can run 100m in 10 seconds.

I heard Walsh describe him as a hero. A hero ? for doing what ? Being an average rider, doping, still being an average rider, writing a book about doping and pocketing the cash. Where's the hero in that ? He didn't give up a lucrative career to blow the whistle, he didn't donate the proceeds of the book to anti doping causes, and his entire journolistic career, which now appears to be heading for the toilet, has been built on the back of that book.

iainf72

colint wrote:

He didn't give up a lucrative career to blow the whistle, he didn't donate the proceeds of the book to anti doping causes, and his entire journolistic career, which now appears to be heading for the toilet, has been built on the back of that book.

I think this sort of proves you don't know much about Kimmage.

colint

iainf72 wrote:

colint wrote:

He didn't give up a lucrative career to blow the whistle, he didn't donate the proceeds of the book to anti doping causes, and his entire journolistic career, which now appears to be heading for the toilet, has been built on the back of that book.

I think this sort of proves you don't know much about Kimmage.

Maybe I don't Iain, can you tell me what's wrong in the above quote though ?

Did he give up a lucrative career ? No
Did he donate the proceeds ? No
Is his career heading for the toilet ? Yes (cue the "unemployed journalist" whinging from Walsh, hasn't had a commission for 8 months blah blah"
Would he have had a writing career without the book ? Probably not although we'll never know (can't find any other books by him though)

DeadCalm

colint wrote:

Did he give up a lucrative career ? No
Did he donate the proceeds ? No
Is his career heading for the toilet ? Yes (cue the "unemployed journalist" whinging from Walsh, hasn't had a commission for 8 months blah blah"
Would he have had a writing career without the book ? Probably not although we'll never know (can't find any other books by him though)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Engage-Fall-Ris ... 094&sr=1-1

Apart from that, I'm not sure that the rest is too unreasonable.

LangerDan

The original edition of "A Rough Ride" sold a few thousand copies. (Can't remember the figure, but it was less than 10,000). While the book may have made his reputation, it certainly hasn't made him a sackful of cash.