Kimmage and the UCI

colint

DeadCalm wrote:

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.

Have to admit I hadn't even looked :oops:

I could be wrong because I know nothing about the book, but is there anything in it about the use of steroids in rugby and how the increased size and power of forwards is contributing to neck injuries ? He can't write anything about cycling without doping, but never ever ever mentions it in other sports (to the best of my knowledge)

iainf72

He was doing the journalist thing before he wrote the book, with reasonable success I think.

Richmond Racer

Havent read the Matt Hampson book but it has great reviews - won Sports Book of the Year this year (beating Racing Through the Dark, ironically)

DeadCalm

iainf72 wrote:

He was doing the journalist thing before he wrote the book, with reasonable success I think.

Wasn't it just a Nicholas Roche 'view from the peloton' kind of thing?

frenchfighter

http://www.cyclingtips.com.au/2012/10/q ... l-kimmage/

iainf72

DeadCalm wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

He was doing the journalist thing before he wrote the book, with reasonable success I think.

Wasn't it just a Nicholas Roche 'view from the peloton' kind of thing?

Nah, I reckon Paul's wasn't written by Andrew McQuaid (allegedly)

Richmond Racer

The idea of putting anything through spell check that's written by Nico Roche and longer than a tweet, blows my mind

LangerDan

iainf72 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

He was doing the journalist thing before he wrote the book, with reasonable success I think.

Wasn't it just a Nicholas Roche 'view from the peloton' kind of thing?

Nah, I reckon Paul's wasn't written by Andrew McQuaid (allegedly)

The Nico Roche newspaper columns were ghosted by Ger Cromwell.

skylla

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.

Indeed, what a load of bollox. You don't win 3 SJA awards using doping for a start. You, colint, probably never heard of Matt Hampson and other issues that he raised and dared to raise in pro-sport. But then again, you're "glad to see him dragged court" so you're probably a sorry-ass-troll.

colint

skylla wrote:

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.

Indeed, what a load of bollox. You don't win 3 SJA awards using doping for a start. You, colint, probably never heard of Matt Hampson and other issues that he raised and dared to raise in pro-sport. But then again, you're "glad to see him dragged court" so you're probably a sorry-ass-troll.

Perhaps you'd like to address the points I made rather than making baseless assumptions ? I know all about Matt Hampson as I'm heavily involved in a local rugby club. I don't like Kimmage, I think he's over rated both as a writer and in regard to his influence on the anti doping campaign

I await your reasoned rebuttal of my earlier points......

No_Ta_Doctor

colint wrote:

skylla wrote:

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.

Indeed, what a load of bollox. You don't win 3 SJA awards using doping for a start. You, colint, probably never heard of Matt Hampson and other issues that he raised and dared to raise in pro-sport. But then again, you're "glad to see him dragged court" so you're probably a sorry-ass-troll.

Perhaps you'd like to address the points I made rather than making baseless assumptions ? I know all about Matt Hampson as I'm heavily involved in a local rugby club. I don't like Kimmage, I think he's over rated both as a writer and in regard to his influence on the anti doping campaign

I await your reasoned rebuttal of my earlier points......

I'm absolutely mystified as to why you think Kimmage should have donated the proceeds of his book to " anti-doping causes". Why? It's an absolutely ridiculous idea.

Whether you like him or not, Rough Ride was hugely important in exposing doping culture in the peloton, not in terms of who did what, but in terms of why it happened. The narrative of why he chose to dope is that same narrative that informs the debates today.

steerpike

colint wrote:

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.

What utterly baseless arguments. Frankly, unadulterated twaddle. Too many bangs on the head perhaps.

colint

No tA Doctor wrote:

colint wrote:

skylla wrote:

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.

Indeed, what a load of bollox. You don't win 3 SJA awards using doping for a start. You, colint, probably never heard of Matt Hampson and other issues that he raised and dared to raise in pro-sport. But then again, you're "glad to see him dragged court" so you're probably a sorry-ass-troll.

Perhaps you'd like to address the points I made rather than making baseless assumptions ? I know all about Matt Hampson as I'm heavily involved in a local rugby club. I don't like Kimmage, I think he's over rated both as a writer and in regard to his influence on the anti doping campaign

I await your reasoned rebuttal of my earlier points......

I'm absolutely mystified as to why you think Kimmage should have donated the proceeds of his book to " anti-doping causes". Why? It's an absolutely ridiculous idea.

.

I don't think he should have donated them, his story, his book, his money. I just don't get why Walsh refers to him as a hero. He gave up absolutely nothing to tell his story, and by his own admission his entire career since then has been built on that book. I'm not saying he hasn't contributed to the good fight, I'm saying he's not a hero and most of what he's done is self serving, and with regards to other sports, hypocritical (ie never mentioning obvious doping)

colint

steerpike wrote:

colint wrote:

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.

What utterly baseless arguments. Frankly, unadulterated twaddle. Too many bangs on the head perhaps.

Baseless how ? Do you mean baseless like his Wiggins article or baseless as in you can't really think of anything better to say ?

skylla

colint wrote:

steerpike wrote:

colint wrote:

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.

What utterly baseless arguments. Frankly, unadulterated twaddle. Too many bangs on the head perhaps.

Baseless how ? Do you mean baseless like his Wiggins article or baseless as in you can't really think of anything better to say ?

Baseless as your arguments seem very subjective. You don't like the man, fine. But let that not cloud your judgement. If Walsh wants to describe him as a hero, what's the problem with that? The two happen to be very good friends. It also happens that Kimmage was a very VERY early whistleblower when 99.5% of cycling fans didn't have a scoobee (so for you to say you knew back in 1990, perhaps you should have been so kind to inform us). He opened a lot of eyes back in the nineties. If he spoke out and ignored the omerta he must have balls. Whether that makes him a hero is rather academic, right? By the way, he didn't make a lot of money with his book, the man is broke (hence the fund raising?!). If he wanted to make money, he should have been writing about teenage wizards and besoms, or perhaps vampires.

You like to see him in court because you think he's a rude man or you don't like his manners. You might not realise that free speech and a free press is on trial here! If you don't mind that, perhaps consider moving to Russia and see where your rather crude opinions will get you in no-time.

Hey, I don't agree with his manners either, he can be a rude&crude man. But why the bile? He deserves at least some respect and certainly our support (whether financial or in forums) for standing up to organisations that are hell-bend on suppressing free thought and speech.

dave_1

Anyone who followed the sport at 2003-2006 knows about the Armstrong donations to the UCI and considerable amounts of money he offered to donate..those facts were in the public domain..reported at the time in print news. To connect those later to the cover up of a + is really shaky ground for Pauk Kimmage. Normally a bribe is secret. The UCI can argue the donation is not basis to allege corruptuion and they might win on that point.

The UCI is on more shaky ground as regards it explaining away the + test allegations....that's Kimmages best chance of showing what we all know is true..that the UCI's conflict of interests is bad for the sport

tremayne

To become a whistleblower, Kimmage had to give up some good friends and also wave good bye to the life he could have had. That is a lot more than most have ever been prepared to do. He was pretty much completly ostracised and thats not a happy place to be.

I didn't really like the book as a 'good read' and some of his twitterings are drivel. However, he's a man that needs our support and he should get it.

RichN95.

Dave_1 wrote:

Anyone who followed the sport at 2003-2006 knows about the Armstrong donations to the UCI and considerable amounts of money he offered to donate..those facts were in the public domain..reported at the time in print news. To connect those later to the cover up of a + is really shaky ground for Pauk Kimmage. Normally a bribe is secret. The UCI can argue the donation is not basis to allege corruptuion and they might win on that point.

The UCI is on more shaky ground as regards it explaining away the + test allegations....that's Kimmages best chance of showing what we all know is true..that the UCI's conflict of interests is bad for the sport

I agree. I think it's likely he'll lose.

skylla

Dave_1 wrote:

Anyone who followed the sport at 2003-2006 knows about the Armstrong donations to the UCI and considerable amounts of money he offered to donate..those facts were in the public domain..reported at the time in print news. To connect those later to the cover up of a + is really shaky ground for Pauk Kimmage. Normally a bribe is secret. The UCI can argue the donation is not basis to allege corruptuion and they might win on that point.

The UCI is on more shaky ground as regards it explaining away the + test allegations....that's Kimmages best chance of showing what we all know is true..that the UCI's conflict of interests is bad for the sport

True, but don't forget the under-oath-testimonials of former pro's that support your last claim and also the allegations therein that LA has said so himself. Ergo, the UCI should then also go after Lancey and his ex-pals. BTW their is documented evidence that the UCI "insisted", asked for or chased up Lance's (promised) donation. It's a funny world, eh?

dave_1

RichN95 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Anyone who followed the sport at 2003-2006 knows about the Armstrong donations to the UCI and considerable amounts of money he offered to donate..those facts were in the public domain..reported at the time in print news. To connect those later to the cover up of a + is really shaky ground for Pauk Kimmage. Normally a bribe is secret. The UCI can argue the donation is not basis to allege corruptuion and they might win on that point.

The UCI is on more shaky ground as regards it explaining away the + test allegations....that's Kimmages best chance of showing what we all know is true..that the UCI's conflict of interests is bad for the sport

I agree. I think it's likely he'll lose.

According to Greg lemond, Darach Mcquaid, speaking for Pat, threatened Lemond legally when he said UCI was corrupt..that was 7 or 8 years ago. I am a supporter of Kimmage but I agree Rich, he's got a fight on his hands

dave_1

skylla wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Anyone who followed the sport at 2003-2006 knows about the Armstrong donations to the UCI and considerable amounts of money he offered to donate..those facts were in the public domain..reported at the time in print news. To connect those later to the cover up of a + is really shaky ground for Pauk Kimmage. Normally a bribe is secret. The UCI can argue the donation is not basis to allege corruptuion and they might win on that point.

The UCI is on more shaky ground as regards it explaining away the + test allegations....that's Kimmages best chance of showing what we all know is true..that the UCI's conflict of interests is bad for the sport

True, but don't forget the under-oath-testimonials of former pro's that support your last claim and also the allegations therein that LA has said so himself. Ergo, the UCI should then also go after Lancey and his ex-pals. BTW their is documented evidence that the UCI "insisted", asked for or chased up Lance's (promised) donation. It's a funny world, eh?

I don't know how a swiss court will look on under oath testimonials if nobody was wearing a wire or recorder to get it in hard copy ..of Lance saying it himself, or have proof of it in other electronic ways. I''m not a lawyer so maybe hearsay carries such weight in a swiss courts..but Paul Kimmage has a fight on his hands. The donation is not gonna be enough for Paul

skylla

Dave_1 wrote:

skylla wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Anyone who followed the sport at 2003-2006 knows about the Armstrong donations to the UCI and considerable amounts of money he offered to donate..those facts were in the public domain..reported at the time in print news. To connect those later to the cover up of a + is really shaky ground for Pauk Kimmage. Normally a bribe is secret. The UCI can argue the donation is not basis to allege corruptuion and they might win on that point.

The UCI is on more shaky ground as regards it explaining away the + test allegations....that's Kimmages best chance of showing what we all know is true..that the UCI's conflict of interests is bad for the sport

True, but don't forget the under-oath-testimonials of former pro's that support your last claim and also the allegations therein that LA has said so himself. Ergo, the UCI should then also go after Lancey and his ex-pals. BTW their is documented evidence that the UCI "insisted", asked for or chased up Lance's (promised) donation. It's a funny world, eh?

I don't know how a swiss court will look on under oath testimonials if nobody was wearing a wire or recorder to get it in hard copy ..of Lance saying it himself, or have proof of it in other electronic ways. I''m not a lawyer so maybe hearsay carries such weight in a swiss courts..but Paul Kimmage has a fight on his hands. The donation is not gonna be enough for Paul

For what it is worth, I think UCI will drop the charges once they realise that Paul somehow has managed to get his hands on USADA/Federal evidence for UCI corruption. Then again, I'm a betting man.

steerpike

skylla wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

skylla wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

Anyone who followed the sport at 2003-2006 knows about the Armstrong donations to the UCI and considerable amounts of money he offered to donate..those facts were in the public domain..reported at the time in print news. To connect those later to the cover up of a + is really shaky ground for Pauk Kimmage. Normally a bribe is secret. The UCI can argue the donation is not basis to allege corruptuion and they might win on that point.

The UCI is on more shaky ground as regards it explaining away the + test allegations....that's Kimmages best chance of showing what we all know is true..that the UCI's conflict of interests is bad for the sport

True, but don't forget the under-oath-testimonials of former pro's that support your last claim and also the allegations therein that LA has said so himself. Ergo, the UCI should then also go after Lancey and his ex-pals. BTW their is documented evidence that the UCI "insisted", asked for or chased up Lance's (promised) donation. It's a funny world, eh?

I don't know how a swiss court will look on under oath testimonials if nobody was wearing a wire or recorder to get it in hard copy ..of Lance saying it himself, or have proof of it in other electronic ways. I''m not a lawyer so maybe hearsay carries such weight in a swiss courts..but Paul Kimmage has a fight on his hands. The donation is not gonna be enough for Paul

For what it is worth, I think UCI will drop the charges once they realise that Paul somehow has managed to get his hands on USADA/Federal evidence for UCI corruption. Then again, I'm a betting man.

Beat me to it - those who are predicting a loss for Kimmage, don't you think the USADA report of 15th Oct will have a major bearing? i.e. corroborate Kimmage's version of events. If it is as damaging to the UCI as predicted, I can see the case being dropped very fast.

Richmond Racer

Word is that the USADA's report is landing on the UCI this week. Cue panic in Aigle - though I'll put money on it that Fat Pat and Verbruggen keep it to themselves for a while before the rest of the UCI board get a look

colint

skylla wrote:

colint wrote:

steerpike wrote:

colint wrote:

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.

What utterly baseless arguments. Frankly, unadulterated twaddle. Too many bangs on the head perhaps.

Baseless how ? Do you mean baseless like his Wiggins article or baseless as in you can't really think of anything better to say ?

Baseless as your arguments seem very subjective. You don't like the man, fine. But let that not cloud your judgement. If Walsh wants to describe him as a hero, what's the problem with that? The two happen to be very good friends. It also happens that Kimmage was a very VERY early whistleblower when 99.5% of cycling fans didn't have a scoobee (so for you to say you knew back in 1990, perhaps you should have been so kind to inform us). He opened a lot of eyes back in the nineties. If he spoke out and ignored the omerta he must have balls. Whether that makes him a hero is rather academic, right? By the way, he didn't make a lot of money with his book, the man is broke (hence the fund raising?!). If he wanted to make money, he should have been writing about teenage wizards and besoms, or perhaps vampires.

You like to see him in court because you think he's a rude man or you don't like his manners. You might not realise that free speech and a free press is on trial here! If you don't mind that, perhaps consider moving to Russia and see where your rather crude opinions will get you in no-time.

Hey, I don't agree with his manners either, he can be a rude&crude man. But why the bile? He deserves at least some respect and certainly our support (whether financial or in forums) for standing up to organisations that are hell-bend on suppressing free thought and speech.

You're right Skylla I don't like him. I personally don't think he gives a stuff for cycling, he'll happily drag something up on the eve of the Tour but won't ever mention doping in other sports, although he's happy to be paid for writing about them. I just think he's a hypocrit, and uses doping as a career tool. He throws mud all over the place with often no evidence, just read the article about Wiggins, I'd have had him court for that alone if I was Wiggins. It's not protecting free speach to let someone throw any accussation around that they want, I'm not supporting the UCI, but hopefully I've made the point with the Wiggins article. He's just bitter about the sport, and let's not forget he doped as well

On the timing point, I'm pretty sure most knew about doping pre 1990, Festina was 1988 !!

iainf72

colint wrote:

On the timing point, I'm pretty sure most knew about doping pre 1990, Festina was 1988 !!

Festina was 1998

Doping before 1991 or so was pretty lightweight anyway. Not great but it wasn't as skewing as it became after that

Trev The Rev

For many years Kimmage was a lone voice. I'm sure Kimmage would have made more money over the years if he had prostituted himself by writing hero worshiping twaddle like many other cycling writers.

In my opinion trying to sue Kimmage will prove to be 'a blood bag too far' for the UCI.

As for the previous poster saying he is pretty sure most knew about doping pre Festina, well who had the guts to write about it?

Kimmage had the guts to stand up to Armstrong when Armstrong was at the hight of his power. For that alone I respect him.

diplodicus

"On the timing point, I'm pretty sure most knew about doping pre 1990, Festina was 1988 !!"

If you mean the tdf where Festina team was thrown out, that was 1998.

diplodicus

I was a bit slow posting there :oops:

steerpike

colint wrote:

skylla wrote:

colint wrote:

steerpike wrote:

colint wrote:

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.

What utterly baseless arguments. Frankly, unadulterated twaddle. Too many bangs on the head perhaps.

Baseless how ? Do you mean baseless like his Wiggins article or baseless as in you can't really think of anything better to say ?

Baseless as your arguments seem very subjective. You don't like the man, fine. But let that not cloud your judgement. If Walsh wants to describe him as a hero, what's the problem with that? The two happen to be very good friends. It also happens that Kimmage was a very VERY early whistleblower when 99.5% of cycling fans didn't have a scoobee (so for you to say you knew back in 1990, perhaps you should have been so kind to inform us). He opened a lot of eyes back in the nineties. If he spoke out and ignored the omerta he must have balls. Whether that makes him a hero is rather academic, right? By the way, he didn't make a lot of money with his book, the man is broke (hence the fund raising?!). If he wanted to make money, he should have been writing about teenage wizards and besoms, or perhaps vampires.

You like to see him in court because you think he's a rude man or you don't like his manners. You might not realise that free speech and a free press is on trial here! If you don't mind that, perhaps consider moving to Russia and see where your rather crude opinions will get you in no-time.

Hey, I don't agree with his manners either, he can be a rude&crude man. But why the bile? He deserves at least some respect and certainly our support (whether financial or in forums) for standing up to organisations that are hell-bend on suppressing free thought and speech.

You're right Skylla I don't like him. I personally don't think he gives a stuff for cycling, he'll happily drag something up on the eve of the Tour but won't ever mention doping in other sports, although he's happy to be paid for writing about them. I just think he's a hypocrit, and uses doping as a career tool. He throws mud all over the place with often no evidence, just read the article about Wiggins, I'd have had him court for that alone if I was Wiggins. It's not protecting free speach to let someone throw any accussation around that they want, I'm not supporting the UCI, but hopefully I've made the point with the Wiggins article. He's just bitter about the sport, and let's not forget he doped as well

On the timing point, I'm pretty sure most knew about doping pre 1990, Festina was 1988 !!

Festina was 1998. Kimmage is a multi-award winning journalist. He's not to everyone's taste, sure, but harping on about him being talentless and bitter is just very poor mud slinging. As has been posted, he's been a LONE voice in the wilderness for so long and his long held cynicism about the cleanliness of the sport year on year is since he retired is starting to look well founded. He is blunt, he may not have the guille of a Rendell of Fotheringham but thank god he chose to stick to his guns. He was on the ball with Millar, leaving Rendell eating humble pie.