Paul Kimmage.....
Comments
-
Macaloon wrote:Heads-up. This is footage from the Kimmage-Cam of his interview with Sean Yates. Some fruity language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG27qGTMXa4
"You saying Bradley Wiggins can't ride a bike. WTF"
Edit: Forgot to add that this is the big problem with Kimmage: that there was nothing anomalous in the Wiggins performance. And until Kimmage, a cycling pro(!) can come up with better than USPostal comaprisons his credibility takes more damage. That's a shame.
That's brilliant! That IS Yatesy. Had to hit the play button a few times, I enjoyed it so much
0 -
^that link is to a Walter Smith interview“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
TailWindHome wrote:^that link is to a Walter Smith interview
Yes, it is. But he is clearly the natural (and Scottish) twin of Yates in that clip.0 -
Dave_1 wrote:I think Sky have made it open season on themselves so I agree Kimmage has every right to turn his sights on them. Leinders was as dodgy as they come and Sky knew Rasmussen was shady and was under Leinders. Decker went + by 2008. Sky knew this team had a problem and Leinders was their doctor. Why did Sky sign him?
I had hardly heard of Christopher Froome before 2011 Vuelta..he was really far behind at the TDF 2008..his weird trajectory and the fact he is the best climber and time trialist in the world in the past 2 years leave me wondering. I have no proof but have little faith in them now..but still hold out some hope for Wiggins.
One of the more sensible skeptical posts. Although I wouldn't say that Froome is the best TTer or indeed the best climber.
It's difficult to have faith in any cycling team at the moment, Sky do a lot right, unfortunately they have also done a reasonable amount of harm with Lienders.You live and learn. At any rate, you live0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:TailWindHome wrote:^that link is to a Walter Smith interview
Yes, it is. But he is clearly the natural (and Scottish) twin of Yates in that clip.
So that would be a Whooooshh! then?“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:TailWindHome wrote:^that link is to a Walter Smith interview
Yes, it is. But he is clearly the natural (and Scottish) twin of Yates in that clip.
So that would be a Whooooshh! then?
YES. BECAUSE I HAVENT HAD A 2ND COFFEE YET
0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:What's all this about Kimmage being on to Armstrong while the rest of us were still in the dark - was there ever a time when the vast majority of cycling fans didn't assume Armstrong was on the sauce ?
What was it Anquetil said - something like does anyone really think they were riding on bread and water ?
Kimmage gets credit as an English speaking journo who kept banging the doping drum versus Armstrong.
Though that he saved all his ammo for one man is still odd.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:TailWindHome wrote:^that link is to a Walter Smith interview
Yes, it is. But he is clearly the natural (and Scottish) twin of Yates in that clip.
Someone is riding around the internet on a moto and transfusing Walter Smith *Immortal Classics* into recent Kimmage-Cam updates.
In this case they're bang on. If the dude wants to be taken seriously he should stop playing to his disciples thereby insulting the intelligence of the rest of us....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:Macaloon wrote:Heads-up. This is footage from the Kimmage-Cam of his interview with Sean Yates. Some fruity language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG27qGTMXa4
"You saying Bradley Wiggins can't ride a bike. WTF"
Edit: Forgot to add that this is the big problem with Kimmage: that there was nothing anomalous in the Wiggins performance. And until Kimmage, a cycling pro(!) can come up with better than USPostal comaprisons his credibility takes more damage. That's a shame.
That's brilliant! That IS Yatesy. Had to hit the play button a few times, I enjoyed it so much
Your continued idolisation of this LYING DRUGS CHEAT amuses me.0 -
TailWindHome wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:TailWindHome wrote:^that link is to a Walter Smith interview
Yes, it is. But he is clearly the natural (and Scottish) twin of Yates in that clip.
So that would be a Whooooshh! then?
Sorry, mate. Happy New Year ...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:Richmond Racer wrote:Macaloon wrote:Heads-up. This is footage from the Kimmage-Cam of his interview with Sean Yates. Some fruity language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG27qGTMXa4
"You saying Bradley Wiggins can't ride a bike. WTF"
Edit: Forgot to add that this is the big problem with Kimmage: that there was nothing anomalous in the Wiggins performance. And until Kimmage, a cycling pro(!) can come up with better than USPostal comaprisons his credibility takes more damage. That's a shame.
That's brilliant! That IS Yatesy. Had to hit the play button a few times, I enjoyed it so much
Your continued idolisation of this LYING DRUGS CHEAT amuses me.
Whevs
ps I have a confession: sometimes I watch clips of Pantani on the attack. And Fignon. Oh, and sometimes Indurain.0 -
That's brilliant! That IS Yatesy. Had to hit the play button a few times, I enjoyed it so much[/quote]
Your continued idolisation of this LYING DRUGS CHEAT amuses me.[/quote]
LL Is your concern that past indiscretions with the Drs bag may have given Yates a permanent strategic and tactical genius beyond the reach of all the clean DSs in the cars behind?...a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
Macaloon wrote:That's brilliant! That IS Yatesy. Had to hit the play button a few times, I enjoyed it so much
Your continued idolisation of this LYING DRUGS CHEAT amuses me.[/quote]
LL Is your concern that past indiscretions with the Drs bag may have given Yates a permanent strategic and tactical genius beyond the reach of all the clean DSs in the cars behind?[/quote]
No, it's that some people vilify some liars and cheats whilst at the same time idolising others. Yates is one of the worst, he couldn't even fess up and leave Sky with any dignity. His 'didn't see or hear nuffin' bullsh*t is disgusting. I'm glad he's jobless.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:Macaloon wrote:That's brilliant! That IS Yatesy. Had to hit the play button a few times, I enjoyed it so much
Your continued idolisation of this LYING DRUGS CHEAT amuses me.
LL Is your concern that past indiscretions with the Drs bag may have given Yates a permanent strategic and tactical genius beyond the reach of all the clean DSs in the cars behind?[/quote]
No, it's that some people vilify some liars and cheats whilst at the same time idolising others. Yates is one of the worst, he couldn't even fess up and leave Sky with any dignity. His 'didn't see or hear nuffin' bullsh*t is disgusting. I'm glad he's jobless.[/quote]
What, you mean like idolising Bertie? Most people are hypocrites - and yes, that absolutely includes you - a fan just chooses their own benchmark when it comes to who to support and who to turn away from0 -
Richmond Racer wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:Macaloon wrote:That's brilliant! That IS Yatesy. Had to hit the play button a few times, I enjoyed it so much
Your continued idolisation of this LYING DRUGS CHEAT amuses me.
LL Is your concern that past indiscretions with the Drs bag may have given Yates a permanent strategic and tactical genius beyond the reach of all the clean DSs in the cars behind?
No, it's that some people vilify some liars and cheats whilst at the same time idolising others. Yates is one of the worst, he couldn't even fess up and leave Sky with any dignity. His 'didn't see or hear nuffin' bullsh*t is disgusting. I'm glad he's jobless.[/quote]
What, you mean like idolising Bertie? Most people are hypocrites - and yes, that absolutely includes you - a fan just chooses their own benchmark when it comes to who to support and who to turn away from[/quote]
Agree to an extent, however there are subtle differences.
I am under no illusions with Alberto Contador. I support him for his entertainment value, I don't condone what he's done. Most people on here talk about Yates like he's some cool uncle from 'the good ol days' and it doesn't matter that he is an outright liar because he's British and worked for everyones beloved Sky. If he was Spannish and worked at Movistar things would be a little different, no?
Secondly, one of the above was caught, found guilty and punished. The other slithered out the back door with no punishment whilst simultaneously insulting the cycling public by pretending he knew nothing about anything, making out we were all thick. He and his attitude is the very scurge of the sport yet the Brits still support him like he's not done anything wrong? Yet the man had a chance to own up and make good but he still bareface lied and continues too. No wonder he thought he could treat us all like morons if he still has fans defending him. :roll: His 'retiring to spend time with family' and the old 'I knew nuffin' situation, in my opinion, makes him one of the very worst possible people in the sport.0 -
Ah, the favourite Twitter Taliban refrain: 'the anglo saxon press and fans villify Valverde and the rest of the Spanish and especially and poor old Bertie ("who's so exciting, isnt he, and after all it was SUCH as small amount of clen that it didnt really mean that he was doping") - whilst turning a blind eye to the Aussies and the Yanks and the Brits...'
Oh, and Yates is no longer cycling, just to remind you, so he wont have to make you sick any more 'in the sport'. But there are many many other people who remain active in the sport as DSs, or coaches, or riders, or team owners, just desparately keeping their heads down to try and weather the storm and not have to make any confessions - or have also said 'I saw nuffink'. So plenty of fuel there for other people to make you sick. Happy hunting!0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:I am under no illusions with Alberto Contador. I support him for his entertainment value, I don't condone what he's done. Most people on here talk about Yates like he's some cool uncle from 'the good ol days' and it doesn't matter that he is an outright liar because he's British and worked for everyones beloved Sky. If he was Spannish and worked at Movistar things would be a little different, no?
Secondly, one of the above was caught, found guilty and punished. The other slithered out the back door with no punishment whilst simultaneously insulting the cycling public by pretending he knew nothing about anything, making out we were all thick.
Maybe better to say one of them was caught, made up some complete rubbish, acted like a crybaby, was found guilty but neatly avoided the truth of the doping coming out, and was punished. Then acted like a crybaby again. Then he too slithered out the back door with a lucky punishment whilst simultaneously insulting the cycling public by pretending he knew nothing about anything, making out we were all thick.0 -
mfin wrote:LeicesterLad wrote:I am under no illusions with Alberto Contador. I support him for his entertainment value, I don't condone what he's done. Most people on here talk about Yates like he's some cool uncle from 'the good ol days' and it doesn't matter that he is an outright liar because he's British and worked for everyones beloved Sky. If he was Spannish and worked at Movistar things would be a little different, no?
Secondly, one of the above was caught, found guilty and punished. The other slithered out the back door with no punishment whilst simultaneously insulting the cycling public by pretending he knew nothing about anything, making out we were all thick.
Maybe better to say one of them was caught, made up some complete rubbish, acted like a crybaby, was found guilty but neatly avoided the truth of the doping coming out, and was punished. Then acted like a crybaby again. Then he too slithered out the back door with a lucky punishment whilst simultaneously insulting the cycling public by pretending he knew nothing about anything, making out we were all thick.
people missing the point again. :roll: This is less of a direct comparison and more pointing out the fact that Yates is just as disgusting as all the other liars and cheats. Everyone likes to take aim at Bertie, which IS fair enough. It becomes unfair when they then become complete hypocrites and don't say the same about Yates and start banging on about what a top bloke he is. Yates fans live in f*cking la la land.0 -
So you are allowed to support Contador for his "entertainment value" (which is questionable) despite a conviction and no-one else is allowed to support Yates (or others) for their entertainment value.
What a strange moral compass you have.Trail fun - Transition Bandit
Road - Wilier Izoard Centaur/Cube Agree C62 Disc
Allround - Cotic Solaris0 -
lostboysaint wrote:So you are allowed to support Contador for his "entertainment value" (which is questionable) despite a conviction and no-one else is allowed to support Yates (or others) for their entertainment value.
What a strange moral compass you have.
Ive clearly outlined the differences. Nothing wrong with supporting Yates, its the fact that people don't acknowledge his MASSIVE wrongdoing but then bang on about other peoples f*ckups thread after thread after thread.
Same with all the people calling Kimmage out now just because he's not entirely convinced by precious Brad and Sky. Exactly the same thing happened with all the people who cried about his 'attacks' on Armstrong. Just because it will probably turn out Kimmage IS wrong this time, in the modern sport, wheres the harm in asking questions especially when you have been vindicated before? The 'no it can't be Brad he's cool and British' but everyone else is scum and must be dirty 'moral compass' is not a great stance either. People letting their hearts rule their heads. Nobody in cycling should be free from scrutiny. The bloke won every race he wanted to this year, dominance like that comes with questions.
Would people be crying so loud of Kimmage was calling out a foreign rider? I doubt it.0 -
Kimmage is bang on the money saying Sky's performance is questionable. How could he say anything else? We can't have faith in anything in this sport and there are enough unanswered questions that it would be a bit weird for someobody in Kimmage's position to not be suspicious.
As for Yates, where is the proof that he was this doping tyrant you seem to think he was, LL? A minor charge as a rider (for nothing more than Kimmage himself has confessed to?) then its pure guilt by association. I doubt he knew "nothing" of the goings on at USPS, but I've seen nothing to suggest that he had an active involvement in doping there. I can understand your suspicions, but some of the language you are using in this thread is a bit much (IMO) and with a legal hat on is bordering on libel.0 -
BigMat wrote:Kimmage is bang on the money saying Sky's performance is questionable. How could he say anything else? We can't have faith in anything in this sport and there are enough unanswered questions that it would be a bit weird for someobody in Kimmage's position to not be suspicious.
As for Yates, where is the proof that he was this doping tyrant you seem to think he was, LL? A minor charge as a rider (for nothing more than Kimmage himself has confessed to?) then its pure guilt by association. I doubt he knew "nothing" of the goings on at USPS, but I've seen nothing to suggest that he had an active involvement in doping there. I can understand your suspicions, but some of the language you are using in this thread is a bit much (IMO) and with a legal hat on is bordering on libel.
A) Anybody that thinks Yates exit from Sky had nothing to do with the doping policy is EXTREMELY naive.
Were you warning everybody about 'libel' comments in all the Lance Armstrong threads pre-USADA investigation? Or is it just because there's mention of 'good ol Yates the Brit' again?
C) Less about Yates as a doper more about him as an unrepenting liar refusing to admit to any problem in cycling when given the opportunity to actually have a bit of dignity and tell it how it is.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:lostboysaint wrote:So you are allowed to support Contador for his "entertainment value" (which is questionable) despite a conviction and no-one else is allowed to support Yates (or others) for their entertainment value.
What a strange moral compass you have.
Ive clearly outlined the differences. Nothing wrong with supporting Yates, its the fact that people don't acknowledge his MASSIVE wrongdoing but then bang on about other peoples f*ckups thread after thread after thread.
Same with all the people calling Kimmage out now just because he's not entirely convinced by precious Brad and Sky. Exactly the same thing happened with all the people who cried about his 'attacks' on Armstrong. Just because it will probably turn out Kimmage IS wrong this time, in the modern sport, wheres the harm in asking questions especially when you have been vindicated before? The 'no it can't be Brad he's cool and British' but everyone else is scum and must be dirty 'moral compass' is not a great stance either. People letting their hearts rule their heads. Nobody in cycling should be free from scrutiny. The bloke won every race he wanted to this year, dominance like that comes with questions.
Would people be crying so loud of Kimmage was calling out a foreign rider? I doubt it.[/quote]
That situation never presents itself because he never passes comment on any other team or rider. I'm not actually sure that he actually has much knowledge of the present day procycling scene, or that he knows other teams that race today, or that he actually watches races any more.
At least David Walsh, when asked in the Sunday Times live Q&A a few weeks ago re what he thought of last year's Vuelta, admitted that he 'couldnt watch it because he doesnt believe there's any credibility with the Spanish riders or races'0 -
Would people be crying so loud of Kimmage was calling out a foreign rider? I doubt it.[/quote]
We never get the chance. He never passes comment on any other team. I'm not actually sure that he knows that there are any other teams that race today, or that he actually watches races any more.
At least Walsh, when pushed in the Sunday Times live Q&A a few weeks ago re what he thought of last year's Vuelta, admitted that he 'couldnt watch it because he doesnt believe there's any credibility with the Spanish teams or races'[/quote]
You don't have to be a blind fanboy to see the Kimmage smears on Wiggins as the product of a sad vendetta. A mate should intervene before he gets a letter from Sue Grabbit & Runne. Or maybe he's a martyr? Imagine the fund if Wiggo lawyered-up.
I'm personally sick of the baseless allegations, but will gladly up-periscope if he ever unearths credible information....a rare 100% loyal Pro Race poster. A poster boy for the community.0 -
LeicesterLad wrote:BigMat wrote:Kimmage is bang on the money saying Sky's performance is questionable. How could he say anything else? We can't have faith in anything in this sport and there are enough unanswered questions that it would be a bit weird for someobody in Kimmage's position to not be suspicious.
As for Yates, where is the proof that he was this doping tyrant you seem to think he was, LL? A minor charge as a rider (for nothing more than Kimmage himself has confessed to?) then its pure guilt by association. I doubt he knew "nothing" of the goings on at USPS, but I've seen nothing to suggest that he had an active involvement in doping there. I can understand your suspicions, but some of the language you are using in this thread is a bit much (IMO) and with a legal hat on is bordering on libel.
A) Anybody that thinks Yates exit from Sky had nothing to do with the doping policy is EXTREMELY naive. Were you warning everybody about 'libel' comments in all the Lance Armstrong threads pre-USADA investigation? Or is it just because there's mention of 'good ol Yates the Brit' again?
C) Less about Yates as a doper more about him as an unrepenting liar refusing to admit to any problem in cycling when given the opportunity to actually have a bit of dignity and tell it how it is.
A) Yes, probably. If he chooses to walk away, I don't begrudge him that. Maybe he just thinks a clean break from his generation is what the sport needs? It wasn't a warning, just an observation. You obviously think Yates is a "LYING DRUGS CHEAT", you might be right, but I can't say that for sure. Anyway, I find your vitriol a bit unjustified, I guess that's my real point.
C) We don't know if he has anything to repent for, do we? Whilst it would be nice if the omerta was smashed apart, I'm reluctant to hold it against a man for just walking away without naming and shaming his friends and colleagues from much of his career. And remind me, just how many riders have actually trodden that path without having a vested interest?0 -
He is a martyr. Hell, martyrdom worked for him re Armstrong, and its been working with the UCI case.
I know for a fact that a growing number of fellow journalists are getting uncreasingly uncomfortable with how he's going about this re Sky. And not because of omerta, but because they feel that he's doing what he's doing for the wrong reasons. More than one of them have also brought up Leinders, but when he cites other reasons for suspicion as 'skinny guys shouldnt be able to TT that fast' or that Wiggins stopped raging about doping at every opportunity after he joined Garmin...well....
Even his close mate and ally Walsh has said that he now believes Sky are clean - and usually those two are in lock-step. In fact he's probably the only one who can get through to Kimmage before he goes over the top and pushes Sky to where they just might have no choice but legal recourse.0 -
I think were all missing the point here - I mean is nobody out there going to have a real interest on how Mick Rodgers will go this year in the mountains or was he just "Flyin" bearing in mind he couldnt even match the pace on the climbs for years 8)0
-
When was Paul last wrong?0
-
When was ever right without David Walsh getting there first? His much vaunted investigative joirnalism has only ever been copying Walsh.ThomThom wrote:When was Paul last wrong?
He was wrong about Bernard Kohl, he was wrong saying Gibert had no chance of making it to the top and he qas wrong about Landis being a hero. He's wrong about there being many similarities between Sky and Postal.
You can't prove someone is clean so if you keep saying they're doping you may rarely be right but you'll never be proved wrong.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
When was ever right without David Walsh getting there first? His much vaunted investigative joirnalism has only ever been copying Walsh.ThomThom wrote:When was Paul last wrong?
He was wrong about Bernard Kohl, he was wrong saying Gibert had no chance of making it to the top and he qas wrong about Landis being a hero. He's wrong about there being many similarities between Sky and Postal.
You can't prove someone is clean so if you keep saying they're doping you may rarely be right but you'll never be proved wrong.
--0
