Paul Kimmage.....
Comments
-
RichN95 wrote:Would this be an appropriate time to mention that I don't share in the enthusiasm for Kimmage? I really don't see what the fuss is about. I just see him as a cycling version of George Galloway.
I'm with you on this. Saying that, I wish him luck... I'm sure his lawyer will find a way of spending every last penny of the 'defence fund' at the UCI's expense.0 -
Pross wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Yellow Peril wrote:How about making a list of the respected and successful administrators in other sports and poaching whoever is considered to be the best. That's how business's headhunt isn't it?
Clive Woodward's on the market...
The man who's team were described as looking like "white Orcs on steroids" possibly with good reason
Although, I thought he would be a good fit with Sky, after all his WC success was based on safe, tediously boring rugby. 0 -
RichN95 wrote:Would this be an appropriate time to mention that I don't share in the enthusiasm for Kimmage? I really don't see what the fuss is about. I just see him as a cycling version of George Galloway.
I think there are plenty that have a similar view, though I don't think that excuses McQuaid and Hein's lawsuit. Kimmage isn't really my cup of tea, but he has a point.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I'm not sure if it's even deemed appropriate to comment on my own thread, but Paul Kimmage is my cup of tea and I'm glad I contributed to the fund.
Rich, you seem to be a cycling version of Christopher Hitchens.Johny0 -
johny c wrote:I'm not sure if it's even deemed appropriate to comment on my own thread, but Paul Kimmage is my cup of tea and I'm glad I contributed to the fund.
Rich, you seem to be a cycling version of Christopher Hitchens.
I know this might come as shock but not everyone shares unbridled and unquestioning love for Kimmage. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion - doesn't make them a version of anyone else. he's not a saint - he has his own motives - but there's a trend to beatify him which I'm certainly not keen on.0 -
I know what you mean RR.
Personally, he's ok, but he can irritate me a bit.
But anyone who is taking it to those two crooks in Switzerland is a top man in my book!!0 -
I'm not sure what he's hoping to get out of it. Does he want to force a regime change? If so, wonderful, but who's taking over? PK won't give a toss one way or the other who's in charge afterwards.
He's doing Armstrong a big favour for one thing.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
ddraver wrote:That's my concern too iain, Sounds more like a personal attack on people that have been criticizing* him for all those years rather than an genuine attempt to help cycling
*Entirely and demonstrably wrongly
How could exposing Verbruggen and co not help cycling?
They tried to ruin Kimmage - professionally, personally and financially - so good luck to him bringing those c#nts down0 -
It's no good if they re not replaced by someone better. If he was to win and they suddenly went, they hole would be filled by the man with the biggest wallet and the most cronies, not the person who is best for cycling.
THey need to go, but they need to go in the right way too!We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
essexeagle wrote:They tried to ruin Kimmage - professionally, personally and financially - so good luck to him bringing those c#nts down
The concern is, what happens next.
No one seems to know. Is it something like HV and PM are booted, we put a crown on Kimmage and he's the cycling king, all races are clean and in black and white to make them more epic?
Or do we leave a void in power and Makarov takes over?
People need to put the pitchforks down and figure out a plan. What's broken and how is it going to be fixed?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:I'm not sure what he's hoping to get out of it. Does he want to force a regime change? If so, wonderful, but who's taking over? PK won't give a toss one way or the other who's in charge afterwards.
He's doing Armstrong a big favour for one thing.
Likely he does want to force a regime change; don't we all?
What makes you think that PK won't 'give a toss' as to who's in charge afterwards (were there to be an afterwards)? Am intrigued.
Similarly, how is he doing Armstrong a favour? :?"Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
iainf72 wrote:essexeagle wrote:They tried to ruin Kimmage - professionally, personally and financially - so good luck to him bringing those c#nts down
The concern is, what happens next.
No one seems to know. Is it something like HV and PM are booted, we put a crown on Kimmage and he's the cycling king, all races are clean and in black and white to make them more epic?
Or do we leave a void in power and Makarov takes over?
People need to put the pitchforks down and figure out a plan. What's broken and how is it going to be fixed?
Maybe they have put the pitchforks down and have come to the reasoned decision that McQuaid and Verbruggen need to go? Is the stench of impropriety not enough already to be able to justifiably say, in a calm and reasoned manner, they need to go?
This is starting to feel like a failed marriage staying together "for the sake of the kids"... Chances are it might be difficult at first, but "the kids" will cope fine.
"Void in power" if McQuaid and HV went? It seems to me that most of the day-to-day running of the UCI in terms of the effect on "grass-roots cycling" could carry on perfectly well as it is. No doubt there are many tweaks of improvement that could be made, but the current structures of racing programmes, promotion of cycling, etc, work well enough and could continue regardless of what was happening with the president.
Unlike with Pat and Hein, we're yet to hear of suspicions of profound dodginess (or indeed much of anything) about many of the remaining executive board and management committee members - I'm sure they could muddle through (perhaps with an interim chairman) until a new president was found. And if they are dodgy, then perhaps it's good for them to know that the probing spotlight of media attention remains on them - and that there are expectant members are in the fields all around Aigle... waiting patiently... but knowing where the pitchfork attachment is on their Swiss Army knife if need be.0 -
No they didn't. How have they done that then? They were only suing him for six grand. It's hardly financial ruin.essexeagle wrote:They tried to ruin Kimmage - professionally, personally and financially
You've just been listening to what he's said himself. He's such a martyr that if he drops a bag of crisps he calls it a 'potato famine'. A few weeks ago he was saying how much suffering the legal proceedings were causing him. So why is he starting up another case as soon as that one got shelved?Twitter: @RichN950 -
Well for sure he is waging a crusade and he is a journalist so propaganda is his weapon of choice, and for sure he is fundamentally a destructive force in this whole scandal and those thinking he has any role in UCI itself are crazy. If Hein is removed that can't be a bad thing. If Pat is removed, who knows...RichN95 wrote:
No they didn't. How have they done that then? They were only suing him for six grand. It's hardly financial ruin.essexeagle wrote:They tried to ruin Kimmage - professionally, personally and financially
You've just been listen to what he's said himself. He's such a martyr that if he drops a bag of crisps he calls it a 'potato famine'. A few weeks ago he was saying how much suffering the legal proceedings were causing him. So why is he starting up another case as soon as that one got shelved?
Still it is a gutsy move by Kimmage and adds to the story and for that he should be cheered by all of us chewing popcorn on the sidelines.0 -
Rich -- do you think that Kimmage and Ashenden want to clean up the sport?
Are they self-promoters -- yes. Are they inconsistent -- yes. Are they pains in the a$$ -- yes.
Even so, I'm glad that they stir the pot. I think Sky should be questioned, I think Contador should be called out. I think Armstrong needs to be kicked. I think the UCI should be sued. Kimmage and Ashenden don't have to have all the answers, but it is important that they push ball forward.0 -
OCDuPalais wrote:Unlike with Pat and Hein, we're yet to hear of suspicions of profound dodginess (or indeed much of anything) about many of the remaining executive board and management committee members - I'm sure they could muddle through (perhaps with an interim chairman) until a new president was found. And if they are dodgy, then perhaps it's good for them to know that the probing spotlight of media attention remains on them .
Not heared of Makarov then? (Who would likely fill that 'void')
You would benefit reading the excellent pieces Inner Ring has written on this subject.Coach H. (Dont ask me for training advice - 'It's not about the bike')0 -
RichN95 wrote:
No they didn't. How have they done that then? They were only suing him for six grand. It's hardly financial ruin.essexeagle wrote:They tried to ruin Kimmage - professionally, personally and financially
....
They have called him a liar for years, he is a journalist, he makes his money from writing. I suspect this will have influenced past and prospective employers.
I thought it was six grand EACH, Pat, Hein and the UCI? 18 grand is a lot of money for most people. If you are unemployed and potentially unemployable because people high up in the sport have condemned you for trying to get the truth, then I think 'only' £6000 is more than enough to make mortgage payments impossible.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
Why on earth are so many here on PK's case?
This is not a wealthy, corrupt individual with swiss bank accounts and a long string of dodgy connections and endless instances of nepotism.
He's basically a mediocre ex cyclist - who never wished to truly jump on the 'dope wagon' and was probably p1ssing in the wind trying to compete without getting fuly juiced up.
He's rightfully bitter and twisted - having been forced out of his cycling and very likley been well up against it in trying to pedal cycle journalism - whilst having written 'rough ride' etc.
Basically - an unwanted man.
I fully support any effort he makes to bring down Pat and Hein. They deserve this.
How can anyone possibly condone drugs - when the reality is self-transusions and the like. Would you want your son involved in anything so grisly and potentially dangerous.
I didn't make much comment at the time regarding all the forum outcry regarding Ricco. My thoughts at the time were that he was probably far from being an isolted case and that self administered transfusions were probably not wholly uncommon. Its rotten and wrong. He gets slated because he didn't have the money and backing to get better supervision / equipment? All the same to me.0 -
RichN95 wrote:
No they didn't. How have they done that then? They were only suing him for six grand. It's hardly financial ruin.essexeagle wrote:They tried to ruin Kimmage - professionally, personally and financially
You've just been listening to what he's said himself. He's such a martyr that if he drops a bag of crisps he calls it a 'potato famine'. A few weeks ago he was saying how much suffering the legal proceedings were causing him. So why is he starting up another case as soon as that one got shelved?
You think that newspapers are keen to hire journalists who've been sued for defamation? It would've cost Kimmage a lot more than £6 - £18k as his career would be effectively over. Rather unpleasant anti-Irish sentiment in your comment as well.0 -
Newspapers are constantly being sued. They try to avoid it but it's an occupational hazard. David Walsh cost the Sunday Times a million dollars. They made him Chief Sports Writer.essexeagle wrote:RichN95 wrote:
No they didn't. How have they done that then? They were only suing him for six grand. It's hardly financial ruin.essexeagle wrote:They tried to ruin Kimmage - professionally, personally and financially
You've just been listening to what he's said himself. He's such a martyr that if he drops a bag of crisps he calls it a 'potato famine'. A few weeks ago he was saying how much suffering the legal proceedings were causing him. So why is he starting up another case as soon as that one got shelved?
You think that newspapers are keen to hire journalists who've been sued for defamation? It would've cost Kimmage a lot more than £6 - £18k as his career would be effectively over. Rather unpleasant anti-Irish sentiment in your comment as well.Twitter: @RichN950 -
mercsport wrote:What makes you think that PK won't 'give a toss' as to who's in charge afterwards (were there to be an afterwards)? Am intrigued.
Similarly, how is he doing Armstrong a favour? :?
I think he won't give a toss because i don't think he really cares about cycling. If he gets Pat and Hein out, some people will clap like seals and he can move on and write about golf again.
Re Armstrong : If Kimmage is suing Pat / Hein, they can't really sue Armstrong. Which is what they've been looking at doing. And if it was proved they were complicit (which I think might be harder than we realise, afterall, the USADA report was light on blame for UCI), then it kind of lessens Armstrongs "crime"Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
I thought Makarov was the baddie in Call of Duty Modern Warfare series....0
-
Coach H wrote:OCDuPalais wrote:Unlike with Pat and Hein, we're yet to hear of suspicions of profound dodginess (or indeed much of anything) about many of the remaining executive board and management committee members - I'm sure they could muddle through (perhaps with an interim chairman) until a new president was found. And if they are dodgy, then perhaps it's good for them to know that the probing spotlight of media attention remains on them .
Not heared of Makarov then? (Who would likely fill that 'void')
You would benefit reading the excellent pieces Inner Ring has written on this subject.
I have heared of Makarov and I've seed the INRNG articles...
The "many" of the UCI officials I referred to are those that so far no rumours of impropriety/conflicts of interest have surfaced about - obviously, Makarov's not one of them.
It's the AGM of Cycling Ireland tomorrow - it'll be interesting to see if they stand by their man. Apparently, they missed the deadline to lodge a motion of no confidence in McQuaid due to the delays with the USADA report - but they could call an EGM and do one then. This could cause him some probs in terms of his leadership role...0 -
iainf72 wrote:mercsport wrote:Similarly, how is he doing Armstrong a favour? :?
Re Armstrong : If Kimmage is suing Pat / Hein, they can't really sue Armstrong. Which is what they've been looking at doing. And if it was proved they were complicit (which I think might be harder than we realise, afterall, the USADA report was light on blame for UCI), then it kind of lessens Armstrongs "crime"
Then so be it. If they were complicit they should share in his downfall, if they weren't then they have the opportunity to make the most of it at his expense. Either way, get the truth out there, punish those responsible and then move on.
It may be that another crook take his place, in the way that another doper takes Armstrong's place, but what precendent does it set to let someone get away with it? The single best reason for proceding with the case against Armstrong was to set an example for the current riders - you may get away with it this year, but eventually it will catch up with you. The same goes for UCI management.0 -
Ok, let me address this, sort of.Bakunin wrote:Rich -- do you think that Kimmage and Ashenden want to clean up the sport?
The last few years have seen the Armstrong debate polarise the cycling fans comunitee. It has been a time of dividing up of the those who are pro or against LA. There is only black and white. There are no greys. The Bush mantra of 'you are with us or against us' prevails.
And in such an environment, the anti-Armstrong heros have emerged. And they are untouchable and of totally pure motive. Anyone who opposes them is a fanboy. Well, that is me. They may be right on certain matters, but they are not infalible.
Let's look at the two 'heroes' mentioned.
1. Michael Ashenden. He has worked on the Bio Passport for which I give him enormous credit. But he quit becuase they insisted on a coinfidentiality contract. He said this was an attempt to silence him, but he's a man more interested in his media profile than anti-doping. He has used his BP knowledge to publish papers on how the passport can be beaten, he told Aussie TV the limitations of the plasticiser test, named other usuable blood bags, and also, when certain evidence against Contador was ruled inadmissable, took it to 'internet court'. None of this helps.
But Ashenden has said that LA doped and gives the media the quotes that they want (readily) so he is seen as everyone's no.1 anti-doping king, while other more dedticated people just get on with it.
Kimmage, I get to tomorrow. That's a whole bigger deal.
My basic point is that people are complex - don't think anyone is purely motivated or always right.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
No they didn't. How have they done that then? They were only suing him for six grand. It's hardly financial ruin.essexeagle wrote:They tried to ruin Kimmage - professionally, personally and financially
You've just been listening to what he's said himself. He's such a martyr that if he drops a bag of crisps he calls it a 'potato famine'. A few weeks ago he was saying how much suffering the legal proceedings were causing him. So why is he starting up another case as soon as that one got shelved?
Fair enough Rich....I can't see any procedure to remove Pat and Hein so maybe this Kimmage initiative is a way to bring about their demise?0
