Paul Kimmage.....

Abdoujaparov

RichN95 wrote:

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.html

You seem to have quite some chip on your shoulder about Kimmage. He was talking about the Tour de France: "...the two vital attributes — the ability to climb and time-trial — required to win the Tour de France and in an ideal world we’d be reporting today that this is where his childhood dream begins. But it is not an ideal world, and the grim facts of this very grim sport are that Philippe Gilbert’s dreams have already ended."

Get over it.

oneof1982

Rick Chasey wrote:

Maybe I'm just this guy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvTNyKI ... detailpage

It's all of us or we wouldn't be posting!

Tom Butcher

RichN95 wrote:

T
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.

I don't know who you've been talking to but this is far from the impression I get. Rather I see people who recognise that cycling needs to be cleaned up and that requires people willing to tell it like it is - Kimmage is one of those and on that score deserves backing.

I agree with Rick to an extent - that Kimmage has at times given the impression that he doesn't actually like cycling - but perhaps that is justified by the extent of the problems in the sport. I mean reporting on cycle racing as if it's a sport has almost been to participate in perpetuating a lie. Since I got into watching cycling over a decade ago there probably isn't a single result that can be taken at face value - that is about as black and white as it gets.

Trev The Rev

Like Kimmage or not, he is one of the very few who stood up against the likes of Armstrong. Simple fact is the reason cycling is in such a mess is because there were far too few like Kimmage who had the guts to tell it like it is, and far too many who were prepared to cheat or allow the cheating to continue.

Crawlinguphills

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.

Rick, I think there is a difference between being a 'bloody messiah' and people just backing him up now, including the Rev Millar because he was right.

Also, I dont think there are shades of grey in this instance, I think this is a very black and white issue. Kimmage was treated for two decades like a piece of sh1t because he chose to stand up (admittedly while a few others were doing the same) and call 'foul.' Watching the clip of him taking on Armstrong in a packed press conference creates two emotions in me, firstly respect as the guy must have balls of brass to do it, and secondly out and out anger at the bare faced lying. Its like standing up in a press conference and accusing Lionel Messi of being a cheat, knowing as you do it that virtually no one in the room is on your side, and if they are, they sure as hell aren't going to publically back you.

Imagine for a second that in your job you KNEW that something at a very high level was corrupt across the organisation. In your role, it was your function to expose this. So you do. You then get called every name under the sun, publically embarassed, shunned, verbally attacked and generally made a mockery of as a 'fanatic.' But you stick to your story for the next 20 years and keep speaking out about the corruption you KNOW is there. You reach the point where you are on the verge of losing everything, and suddenly it turns out that you are right. Now I don't know about you, but I would be taking a swing (figuratively) at every single lying, doping, cheating sh1t or official that had painted me as a loon for the past 20 years. If you feel that you wouldnt you are a much, much better man than me.

Is it a crusade? Or course it is. But in this instance it is a crusade for the right reasons, how can trying to expose doping and corruption be anything other than right? Does Kimmage hate cycling? Most probably, but then I think we all would in his position. 20 years of being laughed at. I can't see how Kimmage's crusade can damage cycling any further, change at the very top can only be a good thing, but it still wont work. Its evidently personnal for him now, but what he may acheive as an aside is extremely positive.

I have worked in sports marketing for my whole career, everything from small start up companies through to IMG and nothing fails to surprise me when it comes to sport and athletes. However the only way to 'clean up cycling' and sport in general is to make the risks too great to cheat. Lifetime bans. You get caught, you're banned for life. None of this 2 year ban cr@p or six months, its insulting. It never fails to amaze me how people cheer on Contador et al. If I cheat at my job, I would pay the consequences, and they would be severe. I wouldnt disappear for a few months, come back, and be hailed a hero as I 'danced' up the climbs. The consequences have to be too great to even consider taking the risk.

It is not black and white. It is f*cking cheating and ruins the sport for current fans and potential future fans. I wonder how many people started to take interest in pro cycling as a result of this summer, and were immediately put off again because of the Armstrong affair? Its a laughing stock. Without individuals like Kimmage, Walsh, JV and dare I say it Millar, it has no hope of change. Trust me on this, as it is my job, the future of cycling as a marketing vehicle now depends on change.

Not a go at you directly Rick, so please excuse the rant.

harrydaisy

Crawlinguphills wrote:

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.

Rick, I think there is a difference between being a 'bloody messiah' and people just backing him up now, including the Rev Millar because he was right.

Also, I dont think there are shades of grey in this instance, I think this is a very black and white issue. Kimmage was treated for two decades like a piece of sh1t because he chose to stand up (admittedly while a few others were doing the same) and call 'foul.' Watching the clip of him taking on Armstrong in a packed press conference creates two emotions in me, firstly respect as the guy must have balls of brass to do it, and secondly out and out anger at the bare faced lying. Its like standing up in a press conference and accusing Lionel Messi of being a cheat, knowing as you do it that virtually no one in the room is on your side, and if they are, they sure as hell aren't going to publically back you.

Imagine for a second that in your job you KNEW that something at a very high level was corrupt across the organisation. In your role, it was your function to expose this. So you do. You then get called every name under the sun, publically embarassed, shunned, verbally attacked and generally made a mockery of as a 'fanatic.' But you stick to your story for the next 20 years and keep speaking out about the corruption you KNOW is there. You reach the point where you are on the verge of losing everything, and suddenly it turns out that you are right. Now I don't know about you, but I would be taking a swing (figuratively) at every single lying, doping, cheating sh1t or official that had painted me as a loon for the past 20 years. If you feel that you wouldnt you are a much, much better man than me.

Is it a crusade? Or course it is. But in this instance it is a crusade for the right reasons, how can trying to expose doping and corruption be anything other than right? Does Kimmage hate cycling? Most probably, but then I think we all would in his position. 20 years of being laughed at. I can't see how Kimmage's crusade can damage cycling any further, change at the very top can only be a good thing, but it still wont work. Its evidently personnal for him now, but what he may acheive as an aside is extremely positive.

I have worked in sports marketing for my whole career, everything from small start up companies through to IMG and nothing fails to surprise me when it comes to sport and athletes. However the only way to 'clean up cycling' and sport in general is to make the risks too great to cheat. Lifetime bans. You get caught, you're banned for life. None of this 2 year ban cr@p or six months, its insulting. It never fails to amaze me how people cheer on Contador et al. If I cheat at my job, I would pay the consequences, and they would be severe. I wouldnt disappear for a few months, come back, and be hailed a hero as I 'danced' up the climbs. The consequences have to be too great to even consider taking the risk.

It is not black and white. It is f*cking cheating and ruins the sport for current fans and potential future fans. I wonder how many people started to take interest in pro cycling as a result of this summer, and were immediately put off again because of the Armstrong affair? Its a laughing stock. Without individuals like Kimmage, Walsh, JV and dare I say it Millar, it has no hope of change. Trust me on this, as it is my job, the future of cycling as a marketing vehicle now depends on change.

Not a go at you directly Rick, so please excuse the rant.

Very well put

essexeagle

RichN95 wrote:

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.html

Umm he wrote that just as cycling's number one cheat was one his way to 'winning' his seventh Tour. Can't really blame Kimmage for being pessimistic can you?

Spiny_Norman

essexeagle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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.html

Umm he wrote that just as cycling's number one cheat was one his way to 'winning' his seventh Tour. Can't really blame Kimmage for being pessimistic can you?

No, indeed. So what's his excuse for being such an ar$e about everything now? A lot has changed in the last 7 years, and Monsieur Gilbert doesn't seem to be doing too badly for himself, considering that he's Kimmage's chosen poster child for clean riders forced out of the sport by doping. Was Kimmage wrong then, or is he wrong now?

Kimmage has built up a decent niche for himself just by indiscriminately smearing anyone who did well on a bike. It's a dirty sport, they're all doping, that Texan's the worst of the lot, won't someone please think of the children, can I have my fee now? Sure, that's a crude parody, but I think there's a streak of truth running through it as well. It was easy to point the finger during the EPO era, because anyone who was achieving anything significant was pretty much guaranteed to be doping. But if doping is ever to be eliminated or even reduced, that stops being reasonable behaviour.

Kimmage is still continuing with the same simplistic broad-brush approach as before, when it seems that at the very least the prevalence and effectiveness of doping are currently way down on 10 years ago. That doesn't help, and nor does his expectation that riders should be attempting to prove negatives purely for his satisfaction, although it may be that his attitude there is more a continuation of his 2-year-old fit of pique that Sky wouldn't give into his every demand. He's fighting the same battle over and over again, and setting himself up as the final arbiter of cleanness. And showing little interest in the actual racing.

But let me be clear - I like Kimmage in many ways. He's kept on about this even when no one seemed to want to listen. He had the sort of honest, angry tenacity that was notably absent in most of the rest of the press corps who were quite happy to share jokes between themselves before writing up another astonishing Armstrong win. But that doesn't mean he's always right, and to be blunt, it doesn't mean he has anything to offer the sport in the future. His obstinacy was perfect for fighting a conspiracy of silence, but I'm not convinced that he has it in him to step back and analyse either cycling or doping dispassionately and objectively.

Richmond Racer

Hat tip to Spiny Norman for that post

Crawlinguphills

Spiny_Norman wrote:

essexeagle wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

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.html

Umm he wrote that just as cycling's number one cheat was one his way to 'winning' his seventh Tour. Can't really blame Kimmage for being pessimistic can you?

No, indeed. So what's his excuse for being such an ar$e about everything now? A lot has changed in the last 7 years, and Monsieur Gilbert doesn't seem to be doing too badly for himself, considering that he's Kimmage's chosen poster child for clean riders forced out of the sport by doping. Was Kimmage wrong then, or is he wrong now?

Kimmage has built up a decent niche for himself just by indiscriminately smearing anyone who did well on a bike. It's a dirty sport, they're all doping, that Texan's the worst of the lot, won't someone please think of the children, can I have my fee now? Sure, that's a crude parody, but I think there's a streak of truth running through it as well. It was easy to point the finger during the EPO era, because anyone who was achieving anything significant was pretty much guaranteed to be doping. But if doping is ever to be eliminated or even reduced, that stops being reasonable behaviour.

Kimmage is still continuing with the same simplistic broad-brush approach as before, when it seems that at the very least the prevalence and effectiveness of doping are currently way down on 10 years ago. That doesn't help, and nor does his expectation that riders should be attempting to prove negatives purely for his satisfaction, although it may be that his attitude there is more a continuation of his 2-year-old fit of pique that Sky wouldn't give into his every demand. He's fighting the same battle over and over again, and setting himself up as the final arbiter of cleanness. And showing little interest in the actual racing.

But let me be clear - I like Kimmage in many ways. He's kept on about this even when no one seemed to want to listen. He had the sort of honest, angry tenacity that was notably absent in most of the rest of the press corps who were quite happy to share jokes between themselves before writing up another astonishing Armstrong win. But that doesn't mean he's always right, and to be blunt, it doesn't mean he has anything to offer the sport in the future. His obstinacy was perfect for fighting a conspiracy of silence, but I'm not convinced that he has it in him to step back and analyse either cycling or doping dispassionately and objectively.

Well reasoned post. I have no particular view on Kimmage as a person, as I dont know him personally. He might be the life and soul of the party, he might be the guy in the corner drowning his sorrows in a bottle of whisky mumbling 'infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me'. What I do have for him is a deep respect. I have never seen a journalist be so dogmatic and keep banging the drum in the face of everything and everyone that told him otherwise. No matter what you think of the man, that took balls, regardless of whether it was his job or not. Yes of course he has a niche for himself now, as do JV, Millar et al as the go to guy for a doping sound bite/rant, but after the last 20 years I feel he deserves that, he deserves his 'I told you so moment'. I also feel that his fanatical approach may lead to positive change, if he has a place in cycling after that change is another issue. If cycling becomes clean, would he find the love again? Or continue to see hostile shadows in every corner.

As mere cycling fans, I dont think we can really understand what he has been through. Not to labour a point, but having been on the inside of sport for the last ten years, trust me when I say the bodies involved will have tried every way they can 'legally' to silence him and brush him under the carpet. That may not sound that frightening, but when an entire sport sets against you, there is an awful, awful lot they can do.

Tom Butcher

Disagree (edit - with the post a couple of posts up!). How much has really changed in 10 years. We are still seeing riders being caught for doping. Hasn't Scarponi just been suspended this week for working with Ferrari - this is a top rider still working with the most notorious doping doctor there is. Schleck suspended this year, Contador just come back from a suspension - GC contenders in the very biggest races. The same names are in charge, both in the UCI and the teams, why should we believe the voices who say what happened 10 years ago is all in the past when the evidence suggests it isn't.

As for him making a career out of it - rather I agree with Millar in his latest interview - Kimmage's pursuit of dopers has become more self destructive than a career move.

Richmond Racer

After being shut out from cycling, Kimmage changed tack and since then has been writing about rugby, including the very well-reviewed 'Engage' , winning awards including Sports Book of the Year.

His career did not self-destruct, nor show any sign of doing so. Let's not get too carried away here. This is the problem - attempts to turn him into a martyr (which Kimmage does embrace, I have to say)

Tom Butcher

Indeed let's not get carried away by saying things like people are trying to turn him into a martyr. Nobody said his career self destructed - just that his pursuit of doping has become in anything self destructive.

Richmond Racer

If doing something self-destructive means becoming an award-winning writer, I've off to punch my boss now. My nomination for next year's Booker prize should follow.

mercsport

Interestingly, 'The Inner Ring' re-visits Rough Ride: http://inrng.com/2012/11/book-review-ro ... more-11662

oneof1982

Spiny_Norman wrote:

..........So what's his excuse for being such an ar$e about everything now?

Kimmage has built up a decent niche for himself just by indiscriminately smearing anyone who did well on a bike. .....

Kimmage is still continuing with the same simplistic broad-brush approach as before, ................... although it may be that his attitude there is more a continuation of his 2-year-old fit of pique that Sky wouldn't give into his every demand. ............................. showing little interest in the actual racing.

But let me be clear - I like Kimmage............ .

Jeez, I'd hate to read what you have to say about someone you didn't like......

Spiny_Norman

I do like Kimmage - for what he is, and for what he's done. But I think Millar had it right when he called him a fanatic, and that cuts both ways. He doesn't know when to let go of something, which is great when you need a persistent SOB to make a nuisance of himself to right a obvious wrongs, but not so good when he's left chasing around after wrongs that may or may not have happened. Eliot Ness was a fanatic, but so was Torquemada.

Tom Butcher wrote:

Disagree (edit - with the post a couple of posts up!). How much has really changed in 10 years. We are still seeing riders being caught for doping. Hasn't Scarponi just been suspended this week for working with Ferrari - this is a top rider still working with the most notorious doping doctor there is. Schleck suspended this year, Contador just come back from a suspension - GC contenders in the very biggest races. The same names are in charge, both in the UCI and the teams, why should we believe the voices who say what happened 10 years ago is all in the past when the evidence suggests it isn't.

As for him making a career out of it - rather I agree with Millar in his latest interview - Kimmage's pursuit of dopers has become more self destructive than a career move.

I don't think he's made a career out of it, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he could have done better without all this, but he has now carved out a niche as the Cynical Cycling Doping Guy, and as it's such a part of who he is now, I can't see him vacating it soon.

As for whether the sport's changed - it isn't clean, of course it isn't, but it isn't as obviously riddled with doping as it once was. Ross Tucker's done some great work on analysing the effects of the Bio Passport, and showing how much less variation there now is in blood values, as well as calculating that power outputs are down to plausible natural levels from the ludicrous heights of a few years ago. It's not that everyone's clean, or even that fewer people are doping necessarily, but it's clearly possible to win big races now without juicing, as Kimmage's mate Gilbert will attest.

We've still got doping problems, so in a sense, nothing's changed. But for Kimmage's slash-and-burn approach to doping to be effective and reasonable, he has to have a very clear basis for suspecting people. Not so long ago, anyone doing well was almost guaranteed to be dodgy. That's improving, but Kimmage doesn't seem to have caught up, judging by his crude smearing of Wiggins in the summer. Maybe he's right - maybe the whole Sky setup is an elaborate screen for a sophisticated doping programme. But he needs to demonstrate that, or at least provide proper grounds for suspicion, before he starts calling people out and demanding all sorts of information to "prove" that they're clean.

I think his heart's in the right place, but his approach lacks subtlety and belongs to a different era.

tailwindhome

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/kimmage ... nd-wiggins

Richmond Racer

Yep, off he goes again. Seems to be trying to carve out a career of this re Sky. '"And I'd bought the camper van and everything..."

rick_chasey

He increasingly reminds me of John Paulson.

Richmond Racer

Rick Chasey wrote:

He increasingly reminds me of John Paulson.

I'm feeling a bit dense, first day back at work. Do you mean punting the whole house into more of what you made your name in originally, and nothing changing despite signs to the contrary? Or am I talking b&*locks?

rick_chasey

Nah. Taking a big hedgehog position that takes a lot of heat which pays off, followed by a catalogue of mistakes trying to follow up that success using the same premise.

Pross

All this 'similarities with USPS' stuff is tiresome. Yes, both teams used the strength of a team to dominate the race but then both teams had huge budgets to invest in hiring domestiques that could conceivably win big stage races themselves. Both teams built their seasons around targetting the race. However, if he feels there's a comparison it needs more science than that - get the power data, the VAM information and ascent times and then do the comparisons. With the marginal gains in technology over the years a doped Sky team should at least match the numbers USPS were producing at their peak. If he wants to continue to be seen as being a crusading journalist he needs to do some investigative work to substantiate his sound bites rather than just smearing anyone he is suspicious of / snubs him.

Gazzaputt

Kimmage isn't right in the head he's one fcuked up individual with a lot of personal demons.

WTF comparing Sky to USPS FFS he's on something he has to be be. Either or I'd go with pure media whore.

Said a long time ago but his book just shouted sour grapes that he wasn't good enough and he still cannot accept that failure.

salsiccia1

Obviously, his manner doesn't help and how he's gone about this one is wrong. But is it completely inconceivable that he might have justification for asking the questions? There ARE similarities with how Wiggo's win was achieved to the USPS method (albeit a bit more slowly!)

I don't believe Sky have been doing anything untoward, but I can understand why the arch-cynic (who has actually been proven right on a lot of things) needs convincing.

blazing_saddles

Basically, it's a re-hash of the exact same stuff from a few weeks ago, qualified for legal reasons with a big, "I don't know".
Sounds to me as if he's:
a) Challenging Sky to give him some of the data Pross mentioned above (i.e. do his work for him) and Wiggins/Froome's Tour blood values.
b) Still miffed at not getting his VIP seat on the Sky Tour bus.
c) Still looking for a job.

ermintrude

I'd like to see Sir Bradley Wiggins deck him

Richmond Racer

ermintrude wrote:

I'd like to see Sir Bradley Wiggins deck him

Yes! If there is a god, please make that happen!

Though on second thoughts it would just fuel the self-martyrdom that Kimmage absolutely thrives on

Trev The Rev

And some claim cycling has changed.

Kimmage has been vilified and undermined before and proved right over and over again. And here we are all over again the only difference this time is it is Sir Bradley and not Armstrong or some other cheating foreigner.

Not only do we need to get the Riises and Verbruggens and McQuaids and Armstrongs out of cycling we need to get rid of the people who malign the likes of Kimmage.

Richmond Racer

Brilliant. I had a little bet with myself on how many minutes before you popped up. I've just won a fiver off myself.