Paul Kimmage.....
Comments
-
Rick Chasey wrote:They pay lip service to cycling's best interests but they don't really care. They mine it for good investigative journalism and a good story and don't care what impact it has.
Why haven't I read any race reports from Walsh and Kimmage? Why aren't they on twitter gassing about the Giro when it was on? Hmm?
They like writing about doping, not cycling.
Simple way to get rid of them - abolish doping.
Sadly both Kimmage & Walsh have been proven right all along. I question the motives of anyone who questions their motives.
Kimmage & Walsh don't hate cycling, they just hate dopers - hardly their fault so many pro cyclists have been proven to be dopers.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Bakunin wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I can live with an anti-doping agenda, if they demonstrate they actually like the sport and want what's best for it.
Guys like Walsh and Kimmage only ever talk cycling when they talk doping, at least, in public.
It's sh!tty and makes me not like them. I feel like they don't have cycling's interest at heart REALLY. They're not fans. They're anti-doping journos who know enough about cycling to get good mileage out of a very good journalism story. Kimmage even writes very well on other sports. It's a real shame he can't write like that about cycling.
For as long as I've been reading Lionel Birnie he's also been anti-doping, but it's quite clear from him that he also REALLY LIKES cycling. Much more likely to listen to him than Kimmage.
Sounds like that Dennis guy -- silly and dumb.
"they don't have cycling's interest at heart REALLY." -- what does that even mean?
They pay lip service to cycling's best interests but they don't really care. They mine it for good investigative journalism and a good story and don't care what impact it has.
Why haven't I read any race reports from Walsh and Kimmage? Why aren't they on twitter gassing about the Giro when it was on? Hmm?
They like writing about doping, not cycling.
Meh, doping and cycling are pretty well intertwined though and depending on your personal feelings towards doping, it can be completely impossible to look past that.
Personally, my attitude to doping is generally wilful ignorance, I don't think I could keep following cycling if it wasn't.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
This is an age old methodological problem. How does the medium in which you learn of something impact on the 'validity' of the knowledge learned? There is no simple answer to this, but it is possible to be thankful for what Kimmage and Walsh and others have done for the sport re. doping without the need to deify them.
You can question the reasons why they did what they did and said what they said until the cows come home, because it is something that can never be completely 'known'. However, you can look at the material realities of what they said backed up with physical evidence and be more certain of getting something approaching 'truth'. The rest is just us chatting on a forum. :roll:Correlation is not causation.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Bakunin wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:I can live with an anti-doping agenda, if they demonstrate they actually like the sport and want what's best for it.
Guys like Walsh and Kimmage only ever talk cycling when they talk doping, at least, in public.
It's sh!tty and makes me not like them. I feel like they don't have cycling's interest at heart REALLY. They're not fans. They're anti-doping journos who know enough about cycling to get good mileage out of a very good journalism story. Kimmage even writes very well on other sports. It's a real shame he can't write like that about cycling.
For as long as I've been reading Lionel Birnie he's also been anti-doping, but it's quite clear from him that he also REALLY LIKES cycling. Much more likely to listen to him than Kimmage.
Sounds like that Dennis guy -- silly and dumb.
"they don't have cycling's interest at heart REALLY." -- what does that even mean?
They pay lip service to cycling's best interests but they don't really care. They mine it for good investigative journalism and a good story and don't care what impact it has.
Why haven't I read any race reports from Walsh and Kimmage? Why aren't they on twitter gassing about the Giro when it was on? Hmm?
They like writing about doping, not cycling.
Have you ever considered that because of exactly that reason they - rather than blinkered fans - were perhaps the most suited to bring this to the public's/our attention??
EDIT: in other words: why shoot the messenger?0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Quite.
Look, if you want to take the opinion that fans are part of the problem then I guess I am. I watched and enjoyed watching what turns out to be doped up riders. I've cheered them on. I've bought magazines because they were on the front cover. I've even bought a replica jersey of one.
All I want is to enjoy my sport. Part of me wishes cycling took the football angle so that we'd never hear about it and I never thought about it. Ideally of course there'd be none of it, but hey, I've been watching cycling since 1998.
I'm more comfortable listening to journalists who use their platform to support cycling for it's good points as well as criticise it for the bad. That's the position I have. I really love pro-cycling and I wish it'd sort itself out.
I used to believe in Santa Claus and Mick Mcmanus and Catweazle. Up until recently, cycling was in danger of becoming the new pro American style pro wrestling. That is, you can cheer on the goodies and baddies in an exciting blast of entertainment, but actually underneath, there is absolutely no credibility. Kimmage and Walsh are to be applauded for trying to reground procycling in reality, and give it much needed credibility.0 -
oneof1982 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Quite.
Look, if you want to take the opinion that fans are part of the problem then I guess I am. I watched and enjoyed watching what turns out to be doped up riders. I've cheered them on. I've bought magazines because they were on the front cover. I've even bought a replica jersey of one.
All I want is to enjoy my sport. Part of me wishes cycling took the football angle so that we'd never hear about it and I never thought about it. Ideally of course there'd be none of it, but hey, I've been watching cycling since 1998.
I'm more comfortable listening to journalists who use their platform to support cycling for it's good points as well as criticise it for the bad. That's the position I have. I really love pro-cycling and I wish it'd sort itself out.
I used to believe in Santa Claus and Mick Mcmanus and Catweazle. Up until recently, cycling was in danger of becoming the new pro American style pro wrestling. That is, you can cheer on the goodies and baddies in an exciting blast of entertainment, but actually underneath, there is absolutely no credibility. Kimmage and Walsh are to be applauded for trying to reground procycling in reality, and give it much needed credibility.
Exactly, they put the right kinda 'pro' back into cycling0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:
Why haven't I read any race reports from Walsh and Kimmage? Why aren't they on twitter gassing about the Giro when it was on? Hmm?
They like writing about doping, not cycling.
To be fair Rick I don't think either of them were on Twitter when the Giro was on, they're fairly new to twitter aren't they?
But they are on twitter now and yes most of the talk is about doping - what they are most well known for and what 'most' of their audience expects. But I don't think you can judge a person's interests just by what they post on twitter. Twitter is a medium through which you can choose to share some information and construct a certain identity for yourself through that medium, it does not hopefully define you or your interests in its entirety.
Right now Kimmage and Walsh are making judgments about what their audience wants to hear and providing them with it, whether that is through twitter or through more mainstream media outlets. They are making a living through writing and if they or their editors/those that commission pieces want them to write about doping they will. I don't think it fair to say that because this is what they write about publicly it is all that they are interested in, or an entire sum of their identity as people. I don't see that correlation is causation in this instance, that the cause of their writing 'only' about doping is caused by their dislike of cycling or any way of proving it.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Weather Kimmage of Walsh like cycling is irrelivent if what they are writing is true. As I've said before I've never been a fan of Kimmages approach but can see where he is coming from. He has had to take alot of stick with very few people sticking u for him.
I have avoided doping stories quite often up untill the recent USADA stuff. But it's jsut wrong to turn a blind eye because "cycling was fun when they were all tanked up on god knows what." Then in the same breath point out how useless the UCI head muppets react.
I'm going to really hate saying this nex sentance. But Walsh as a journal does have a very very strong track record in what he wries about as being true. they are Sport Journo's not fans it'll be wrong for them to act like fans.0 -
Kimmage and Walsh do more than report what goes on. You can't criticise a journo for reporting facts.
You can criticise them for their agenda. Why, for all the evidence in other sports, do generalist sports writers Walsh and Kimmage only write about doping with cycling? They're happy to go along with in other sports.
It doesn't sit well with me. I don't care if they're right. My arse has been saying the same stuff Kimmage has re-Armstrong - only it costs him a lot more than it did me. Big deal.
I can not like their journalism and still think what they said is accurate. I never said it wasn't. I can also think they were largely on the money re-doping but think they're not the saviours of cycling or all round heroes at the same time.
It's not a binary thing.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Kimmage and Walsh do more than report what goes on. You can't criticise a journo for reporting facts.
You can criticise them for their agenda. Why, for all the evidence in other sports, do generalist sports writers Walsh and Kimmage only write about doping with cycling? They're happy to go along with in other sports.
What you appear to have overlooked is that the papers will only print what the editors want to print. Kimmage recently declared that the ST wouldn't run a lot of his stories re' cycling because they were bored stiff with cycling, or words to that effect. In Kimmages career with the ST there was but a tiny fraction of his output to do with cycling."Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
I think we same a similar approach to this Rick but are on slightly inches away on either size of a fence :P
I'm not proclaiming that Kimmage or Walsh are saviors for cycling. But they are telling stories that either need to be heard or are completely proven to be lying through there teeth (if they are lying I hope they never get jobs writing again) But we now know what they write about is true so needs to be aired out and put in motion. A lot of questions are still going unanswered and will hopefully be addressed in the future.
With doping cycling has become an easy target and rightly so. I really do believe football has a much worse issue with drugs in the modern day. We've all seen undertone of stories in Spanish football and I very much believe similar issues happen in English football. Problem fans and the authorities have no interest in this. WADA don't appear to be heard at all in football either. Same things apply to Tennis (this is a maaaahoosive one), Rugby is well known.... point is I can go on with a wide range of sports.
I think its wrong for anyone to bury there head in the sand other such issues. Walsh and Kimmage make money writing about the doping while the teams, doctors and cyclists dope away.... to make money. Professional cyclists lets not kid outside would no way be doing what they do for the fun of it. If no money was in it they would not have the same drive.
It's such a cop out to criticise the Journal (when they are finally write about something) while the successful doped up cyclist rides away and wins everything. Just got to remember how many got stomped on for this 1 cyclist to succeed.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Kimmage and Walsh do more than report what goes on. You can't criticise a journo for reporting facts.
You can criticise them for their agenda. Why, for all the evidence in other sports, do generalist sports writers Walsh and Kimmage only write about doping with cycling? They're happy to go along with in other sports.
It doesn't sit well with me. I don't care if they're right. My ars* has been saying the same stuff Kimmage has re-Armstrong - only it costs him a lot more than it did me. Big deal.
I can not like their journalism and still think what they said is accurate. I never said it wasn't. I can also think they were largely on the money re-doping but think they're not the saviours of cycling or all round heroes at the same time.
It's not a binary thing.
As to your question on why they focus only on doping in cycling?
Money? A more receptive audience willing to hear what they're saying and then repeat it ad nauseam so that the original story that was merely a whisper becomes a crescendo? I don't know. It seems though that your problem is also with those who seek to beatify them. To me it seems like some people are keen to replace one messiah figure in the shape of Armstrong with others in the shape of the caped crusaders Kimmage and Walsh.Correlation is not causation.0 -
I don't expect many to agree.
Ultimately Kimmage and Walsh were in easy positions. Generalist sports writers in a country that doesn't care. They had little to lose in their hedgehog position.
I too thought cycling was drug riddled. This Armstrong stuff is only surprising because I never thought I'd hear riders say it.
Kimmage's article on Wiggins during the Tour illustrates it nicely. It was a bit ridiculous. I read plenty of Fotheringham articles on this years tour. He managed the 'treat this with caution, but meanwhile I'll enjoy it ' path. Many do.
Doping and being a fan isn't a black and white thing. Guys like Kimmage are too binary to be useful or to pay too much attention to. Too narrow, too warped.
I don't know why he's such a martyr. I really don't. I can't think of a time he's lost out for his position or stance. He's been right broadly speaking and that's about it.
And I still stand by my him hating cycling comment. Certainly wouldn't want him involved in anything to do with cycling. And that's nothing to do with his doping stance.0 -
Just out of interest Rick what do you make of this from Millar?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/nov/05/david-millar-cycling
Millar: "The sport has made Paul a fanatic because it absolutely vilified him. Paul loves cycling. He grew up with the sport but it burned him so badly. He was ostracised and got treated like a cunt by so many people – me included – for 20 years. Now all this stuff about Armstrong came out and, suddenly, he was right all along. He's right to still be angry. I'm not sure it's good for him but maybe Paul will be the one to make a difference with the UCI. And here's the beautiful irony. That fanatical voice has been the voice of reason through all this."
The whole article is an interesting read, if nothing else, it is David's opening campaign speech for his future UCI presidential run.Correlation is not causation.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Ultimately Kimmage and Walsh were in easy positions. Generalist sports writers in a country that doesn't care. They had little to lose in their hedgehog position.
S'trewth!
Despite the cull of journalists and others at NI (last year wasn't it?), the reason - as PK would have it - is that Kimmage lost his job on the ST because of his stance re' cycling. :roll:"Lick My Decals Off, Baby"0 -
mercsport wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:Ultimately Kimmage and Walsh were in easy positions. Generalist sports writers in a country that doesn't care. They had little to lose in their hedgehog position.
S'trewth!
Despite the cull of journalists and others at NI (last year wasn't it?), the reason - as PK would have it - is that Kimmage lost his job on the ST because of his stance re' cycling. :roll:
Or spent too much time only writing about doping rather than the actual sport?
Pretty sure he spent most of his time writing about other sports anyway.0 -
Kimmage lost his job.Rick Chasey wrote:I don't expect many to agree.
Ultimately Kimmage and Walsh were in easy positions. Generalist sports writers in a country that doesn't care. They had little to lose in their hedgehog position.
I think you mean 'He managed to 'stick his fingers in his ears and hand over his eyes' so he could continue to enjoy it. Just as you and I did.Rick Chasey wrote:Kimmage's article on Wiggins during the Tour illustrates it nicely. It was a bit ridiculous. I read plenty of Fotheringham articles on this years tour. He managed the 'treat this with caution, but meanwhile I'll enjoy it ' path. Many do.
because he chooses to rip the plaster off and refrain from being mealy mouthed? It's too important/late to in the day for weasel words on this issue.Rick Chasey wrote:Doping and being a fan isn't a black and white thing. Guys like Kimmage are too binary to be useful or to pay too much attention to. Too narrow, too warped.
Ah! *only* being right. I see, not so important then. :roll:Rick Chasey wrote:He's been right broadly speaking and that's about it.0 -
Plenty of people were saying it.
Take a look at the old posts on here. :roll:
Kimmage lost his job because, rather like cyclists on defunct teams, journos had also been cheating and it cost NI a lot of money, so people had to go.0 -
I think Kimmage should be applauded, I would rather read a journo that believes in a cause than bland reporting "business as usual"
The fact that the guy has been handed close to 100,000 dollars in support of recent legal action just shows the strength of opinion against the UCI and doping.
The forum should be 100 percent behind people like Kimmage, those that are not must be in favour of a rotten governing body and the sport staying in the past.Wilier Izoard XP "Petacchi"/ Campag Veloce/ Fulcrum Racing 5
Bianchi Via Nirone 7/ Campag Xenon0 -
harrydaisy wrote:
The forum should be 100 percent behind people like Kimmage, those that are not must be in favour of a rotten governing body and the sport staying in the past.
Always so binary guys!
C'mon. It's shades of grey. Sure, he was right about the Armstrong. Doesn't mean he's cycling's bloody messiah.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Doesn't mean he's cycling's bloody messiah.
No he's a very naughty boy!
Sorry, I'll get my coat.Correlation is not causation.0 -
-
Nah not necessarily. Just a ring of the disingenuous about your stance. Almost like trying to be radical for the sake of it. I learned to recognise this with my brother, always saying black when you say white - or should that be '0' and '1'.Rick Chasey wrote:You guys probably think I support the UCI in their libel case against him too. :roll:0 -
Probably.
I just think people are too quick to be revisionist about their own dealing with cycling, and put that into the context of the sport.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:harrydaisy wrote:
The forum should be 100 percent behind people like Kimmage, those that are not must be in favour of a rotten governing body and the sport staying in the past.
Always so binary guys!
C'mon. It's shades of grey. Sure, he was right about the Armstrong. Doesn't mean he's cycling's bloody messiah.
It seems he has been right about cycling culture since the early 1990's, but there are many others that have helped to expose the likes of Armstrong.
My point is that anyone that has been at the forefront of where cycling is today should be applauded and whether you like the guy or not Kimmage has played his part. For the record I hope that Kimmage gets his day in court and brings the UCI crashing down ( well mc quid and hein)Wilier Izoard XP "Petacchi"/ Campag Veloce/ Fulcrum Racing 5
Bianchi Via Nirone 7/ Campag Xenon0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Plenty of people were saying it.
Take a look at the old posts on here. :roll:
Kimmage lost his job because, rather like cyclists on defunct teams, journos had also been cheating and it cost NI a lot of money, so people had to go.
Journo's have always a reputation of being more bad eggs then good. Or the bad ones making more noise then the good ones ... or something like that. You get the point. The NI thing is no different to cyclists doping. The profession of investigate journalism is near death because of such actions of the phone hacking. Much like doping to cyclists. Are you happen to stick your fingers in your eyes over such things. It's all ethics and morality at the pointy end of such discussions. Such discussions most surely be worth sitting down turning around and saying you miss your exciting cycling days of old.
I0 -
The thing I find with Kimmage is that he is greatly overrated as an alleged investigative journalist.
Ballester and Walsh did the Armstrong book
Coyle did the Hamilton book
Ressiot broke the 99 tests
Rendell wrote the Pantani book
Various Germans exposed Telekom and Rabobank
Even the blunt headed Cassani accidently exposed Rassmussen
What has Kimmage done since Rough Ride two decades ago? He just seems to repeat Walsh's work and call people names in press conferences. As I said earlier in this thread - he's cycling's George Galloway. Great at firing up the cheap seats.
The one piece he did do was an interview with Landis after his e-mail, which is probably why he likes to portray him as a brave whistleblower who has been ruined for it (rather than someone who ruined himself spending his money protecting the lie that made him rich in the first place).
But because Kimmage was the one who shouted loudest at Armstrong he is now seen by many as the arbiter of cleanliness and the guardian of cycling's morals, to some he is close to a prophet, even though he rarely goes to races or talks to cyclists. It's an insult to better cycling journalists.
The polarising nature of Armstrong has thrown up new gods and heroes for some. But I'm not a fan of Bushesque 'you with us or against us' philosophy. I prefer grey to black and white.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Black white, binary blah fckn blah.
Kimmage and Walsh wrote continually about doping because of the reaction they got when they did (abused, sacked, sued). Had they been taken serioulsy in 1990 and then on... and something had been done about it they wouldn't be the ones looking so rightly smug now. Instead, when they did raise these issues people said things like:
insert quotes:
"everyone is at it"
"it is part of the sport"
"no one is taking drugs"
"say it again and I'll sue your ass off"
"other sports are the problem"
Okay, so Kimmage's book was a tad jaundiced and cynical for even me, and I couldn't get my head round the science in some of the stuff Walsh was writing, but thank fck they were writing it, and sticking to their guns. The starting point is PED's are bad. to tolerate the old ways puts us, as I have referenced above, on the same stage as pro wrestling.0 -
Another thing on Kimmage.
Back in 2005, he wrote the following article about a talented, clean young rider who's future (according to PK) was bleak. It includes the line: "But it is not an ideal world, and the grim facts of this very grim sport are that [his] dreams have already ended."
It's classic Kimmage gloom and pessimism. I wonder what he makes of it now?
http://www.ergogenics.org/012.htmlTwitter: @RichN950 -
