Sky and David Walsh

micron

RichN95 wrote:

micron wrote:

On topic: kimmage is a battering ram, Walsh more a Trojan horse - I have enormous respect for both & both approaches have been relevant & borne fruit in the quest to expose Armstrong. Kimmages problem is that he was offered access all areas and then found restrictions placed on that access - no contact with wiggins for 1st week and none at all with Barry (interesting given the timing - TdF 2010). I can see the personality clash with wiggins but Barry?

Barry had just been called a doper by Landis and it was likely, therefore, that rather than have stories about what Sky were doing now, there would have been three weeks of what one of their riders may have done six years ago. And why would anyone invite that?
Kimmage's problem is and always will be that if he doesn't get his way 100% he has a tantrum and then sulks (two and a half years this sulk has gone on for). He is utterly intolerant to anything other than his own opinions.

Kimmage is a passionate man - he wants change now, no pissing around - but intolerant, no. Or at least no more intolerant than anyone on this forum r elsewhere there's plenty of us stubborn enough to believe we're right & have no need to listen to others but I've heard kimmage talk, first hand - passionately - about his love for the bike and the sport. Perhaps, as has been suggested, he needs to go away quietly and start digging, perhaps he'll find nothing, perhaps something.

ddraver

Unfortunately Kimmage has done an awful lot to ruin the reputation he had after that Interview. Plus, I suspect the quality of the interview was as much to do with Landis as Kimmage, it would have been good (read full of juicy gossip) whoever had asked the questions (within reason)

One journalist not getting access is not a ban on ALL journalists not getting access, nor is it controlling access for favourable questions (one certainly would nt ask Walsh if that were the case!), it's not letting a guy who is a known tool destroy what had been a season long goal.

ddraver

micron wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

micron wrote:

On topic: kimmage is a battering ram, Walsh more a Trojan horse - I have enormous respect for both & both approaches have been relevant & borne fruit in the quest to expose Armstrong. Kimmages problem is that he was offered access all areas and then found restrictions placed on that access - no contact with wiggins for 1st week and none at all with Barry (interesting given the timing - TdF 2010). I can see the personality clash with wiggins but Barry?

Barry had just been called a doper by Landis and it was likely, therefore, that rather than have stories about what Sky were doing now, there would have been three weeks of what one of their riders may have done six years ago. And why would anyone invite that?
Kimmage's problem is and always will be that if he doesn't get his way 100% he has a tantrum and then sulks (two and a half years this sulk has gone on for). He is utterly intolerant to anything other than his own opinions.

Kimmage is a passionate man - he wants change now, no pissing around - but intolerant, no. Or at least no more intolerant than anyone on this forum r elsewhere there's plenty of us stubborn enough to believe we're right & have no need to listen to others but I've heard kimmage talk, first hand - passionately - about his love for the bike and the sport. Perhaps, as has been suggested, he needs to go away quietly and start digging, perhaps he'll find nothing, perhaps something.

Yes he does!

Trouble is he's not, he's just sitting on twitter throwing muck hoping that someone will pay attention. Unfortunately he's mistaken the Twaliban for important people in cycling...

inkyfingers

Micron,

Do you not think that Kimmage's undoubted passion might actually be a negative? He's almost obsessed with doping in cycling, which is good in one way, but not good in another. He seems to look for a doping story even when there is little evidence available and personally i think that risks doing more harm than good to the sport.

(i'm @davrosspeaks on twitter by the way).

micron

Dg, not quite sure how you made that leap - simply pointing out that the landis interview was one if the key pieces of the puzzle, along with the work of Walsh, ballester, macur and others - that led to USADA and that it's sad if kimmage's role in that is forgotten. Think if you read the rest of my post, I absolutely agree with yr point - and totally agree with the Italian fan. There are no black and white hats - if wiggins were to be found to be doping he'd still be a hero to many, a good dad, bit of a lad, just as many still idolise Armstrong - the real problem in the sport is poor governance and the way doctors, personnel, the media and fans enable doping.

mroli

OK - I have the greatest of respect for Paul Kimmage. I think what he has done to bring doping in the pro peloton to being an issue that has been exposed and discussed will and has helped advance the cause of "clean" cycling greatly. Unlike others on here I didn't think that the Sykes interview in Rouleur showed him as a "nutjob", but showed that he is (perhaps correctly) deeply suspicious of professional cycling in its entirety.

The accusation that was levelled at Walsh - that he couldn't be independent because he "wanted" Sky to be clean could equally be levelled at Kimmage - he has so publicly proclaimed that Sky are like US Postal, that he doesn't trust Wiggins etc that he seems to "want" Sky to be unclean.

I'm not sure what the insinuations are around SKY in 2010 and Wiggins and Barry - both finished well down the rankings. Prior to Barry's USADA confession he was adamant that he didn't participate in doping and that US Postal didn't and he was a well respected member of the peloton. I agree that Sky shouldn't have granted Kimmage "full access" if they couldn't follow through - but I do think that that was far more likely to be their naivety than any evil doing. I think that Kimmage probably didn't help himself, but then again, I can see why he would say "I was there to do my job and why should I pander to these people".

I have no idea why Kimmage wasn't given the access he was promised though - is this something Fran Millar can answer?

I appreciate that these are more Paul Kimmage questions than questions for you - I guess my question is, "if Walsh gets the access that he wants and has no complaints about anything - would that tick "a" box for you about Sky?" - ie would it do what Sky wants it to do and answer some questions (whilst acknowledging that there are other questions still out there (which I'm sure we'll get to!)

dish_dash

If Kimmage loves cycling so much and wants to change it, could he also turn his ire to some of the other teams as well as Sky. It's the current Sky fixation based upon, from what I see a percieved snub, that (for me) grates.

There's quite a history of dodgy riders, DS, doctors at some other teams which could be prised open or addressed... Saxo, BMC, OPQS, Astana, Lampre, Movistar.

I accept Sky set themselves up for a fall, but compared to some of the teams listed they've been prettty transparent and make the right noises (and no Lance never made the same statements as Sky have). Absolutely Sky should be questioned, but so should Garmin and all the others.

There's a hell of a sh**tpile to dig through and exposure. The Sky twitter stuff just feels lazy...

inkyfingers

My suspicion is that Kimmage didn't get the access he wanted to Sky because he wound everybody up. He hardly comes across as a people person, and sometimes you need that to gain peoples trust.

RichN95.

micron wrote:

Sad that kimmage's brilliant landis interview is so quickly forgotten...

Again, I agree re wiggins - beside the personality clash there is of course the question of prep & crucial first week at the tdf - but, I repeat, why close down Barry? Presumably so that awkward questions re Postal didn't overshadow the team?

Sorry to say, but I think kimmage's point re scrutiny is a valid - if saddening - one. Yes it's unfair to tar all with Armstrong brush but lack of rigour & scrutiny in the Armstrong mess enabled it to perpetuate far longer than it needed to. Questions remained unasked because of fears over lack of access - surely kimmage is only asking that that not happen again? Having lived through festina and assuming naively the sport might clean up its act, it took all f a year for the same old same old to happen again.

The problem with his point about scrutiny is that it's wrong. Sky are subjected to far more scrutiny than US Postal ever were. And Sky are far more open with journalists.
Yet despite all of this scrutiny, only a now departed dodgy doctor has turned up - and that lead goes cold if Sky remain successful. So he has resort to weak comparisons with Armstrong - juxtaposing the names in the hope of creating an illusion of a connection. It's cycling's Godwin's Law.
He's become like a Spanish explorer searching for El Dorado - if he finds it it will be his lifetime achievement, but in all likelihood doesn't exist and he'll end up destroying himself.

ddraver

Perfectly put dish-dash! Wish I had your rapier like mad skillz

All this "hatred" on one of the teams (3 out of the 18 IMO) that us doing it's level best to ride clean. If we cant forgive a few mistakes made in good faith on people that did nt deserve it then cycling is well and truely fecked...

mroli

I think the point is though that Sky are the only team to set themselves up as holier than thou?

micron

Inky, it's a difficult one - he is angry, passionate, obsessional perhaps - the same was said of walsh's pursuit ofvarmstrong of course - but when he spoke at CCN about his love of the sport and of getting on his bike, there was no hatred there, not even disillusion, just a desire to make things better. He and Walsh are fascinating characters & I think both of their voices are important.

Rich, have they got rid of dr bartolucci as well then? Of course sky are subject to far more scrutiny, precisely because of USPS - is that fair? No. Is it lazy? Try reading the Dutch/French/Italian press for scrutiny of other teams - and ask whether an audience generally new to the sport in this country gives a shit about lampre, OPQS etc?

Morality: nail on head

inkyfingers

mroli wrote:

I think the point is though that Sky are the only team to set themselves up as holier than thou?

Garmin?

dave_1

bumped into flatmate/friend of Dan Walsh (son) and David Walsh was concerned about losing his house in 2004 due to LA legal pressure

micron

Aw, disappointed ddraver - came here in good faith to have a sensible debate and you start with the insults already - I wonder whose mind is really most immutable? Yours or mine?

micron

Dave_1 wrote:

bumped into flatmate/friend of Dan Walsh (son) and David Walsh was concerned about losing his house in 2004 due to LA legal pressure

What Armstrong did to Walsh & o'reilly was inexcusable - did you see the late late show with the 2 of them?

tailwindhome

dish_dash wrote:

If Kimmage loves cycling so much and wants to change it, could he also turn his ire to some of the other teams as well as Sky. It's the current Sky fixation based upon, from what I see a percieved snub, that (for me) grates...

Kimmage is focusing on Sky for commercial reasons. The fact is that if he tries to sell an article to the sports editor of a British newspaper on say Rodriguez and Katusha or Vino and Astana their response would be 'Who?'

Personal grudges re The Sunday Times and Sky are merely a side issue.

micron

inkyfingers wrote:

mroli wrote:

I think the point is though that Sky are the only team to set themselves up as holier than thou?

Garmin?

Garmin never had zero tolerance though - they welcomed in a rider like millar and were all about 2nd chances. I'm with ashenden - zero tolerance should be put in place but after a truth & reconciliation process offering a time limited amnesty to riders only

Tailwind: bingo, no appetite from English speaking press for exposes of foreign teams.

Wonder what would happen if anyone did start asking questions about ibarguren at OPQS given cav's presence on the team?

mr_poll

How Kimmage is now approaching cycling reminds me of recent criticism of Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins has made a lot of noise/written about aethism and science vs religion. However more recently his output has been bordering on fundamentalist to the point where even respected scientists are commenting on how he is damaging the argument.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism

Kimmage has every right to question but like you say micron he needs to do some digging and come back with facts - to sit at a press conference and state he can't believe Wiggins won clean without a scrap of evidence beggars belief and smacks of self promotion and headline grabbing.

ask whether an audience generally new to the sport in this country gives a shoot about lampre, OPQS etc?

Kimmage is (should be) bigger than speaking to small minority of UK cycling fans - like other posters have put or tweeted would rather see him take the Spanish authorities to task or ask how when Gilbert rode for QS in 2011 he was a classics legend, he leaves and does nothing in 2012 classics but the new QS classics man Boonen inherits his crown - especially with that teams medical staff history.

ddraver

micron wrote:

Aw, disappointed ddraver - came here in good faith to have a sensible debate and you start with the insults already - I wonder whose mind is really most immutable? Yours or mine?

Not aware I ve made any insults...

dish_dash

But how about a piece on OPQS - it's got this country's 'most successful' rider on it...

And Micron, if the aim is to clean up cycling then yes the Astanas, BMCs and Saxos of this world do have to questioned, interogated and exposed.

As I said, going for the team trying to be transparent for making mistakes is just lazy... Of course Garmin's lot are just assumed to be all clean, it's not live JV has been fully transparent about the way him and his team have tackled doping. And I seem to recall some mistakes and firings there as well...

Even if Kimmage only targets an English speaking audience how about some guns turned on BMC. After all who manages them? Some big names there and the US is a much bigger audience than the UK...

disgruntledgoat

Here's the thing about T&R for me. Why is Damiano Cunego going to tell the world he cheated for the most memorable win of his career?

I can understand a domestique who made his money in the service of others and felt coerced into endangering his health wanting to tell his story, but why are the people who made the money and reputational gains by winning races going to destroy their legacy and value in retirement?

Richmond Racer

I question whether Kimmage is even aware that there are teams other than GRM and Sky in the Pro Tour - and lets not even talk about ProConti or Conti.

I am given to understand that the last time he went to a race and spent time amongst any team/teams was several years ago. He was witih GRM at the Tour in 08, and yes, I'm aware that he went to the press conference for the Tour of Cali specifically to challenge Armstrong.

If he wants to pontificate about the current state of cycling, perhaps he should spend time at a good number of races this year.

Also - and I'm made this point before - he was given access to GRM in 08 - and yet he STILL says that he doesnt know about Hesjesdal.

micron

ddraver wrote:

micron wrote:

Aw, disappointed ddraver - came here in good faith to have a sensible debate and you start with the insults already - I wonder whose mind is really most immutable? Yours or mine?

Not aware I ve made any insults...

Perhaps you just need to tone it down with twaliban stuff? After all this isn't twitter

Richmond Racer

after all. ddraver chap, we're apparently a 'cute little bunch' over here on BR

ddraver

mroli wrote:

I think the point is though that Sky are the only team to set themselves up as holier than thou?

I think it's well documented that the "launch" of team sky was a disaster in many ways. If the Twaliban claim to be interested in cycling as a sport though, the point is that there are many other teams that require far far more investigation than Team Sky. We ve mentioned OPQS, but even so there are still teams that make them look like angels in the ProTour.

The massive focus on Sky suggests that they re actually not really interested in the "sport of professional cycling" at all. It's like an animal lover claiming to care about animal welfare but then spending all their time criticising the RSPCA!

RichN95.

TailWindHome wrote:

dish_dash wrote:

If Kimmage loves cycling so much and wants to change it, could he also turn his ire to some of the other teams as well as Sky. It's the current Sky fixation based upon, from what I see a percieved snub, that (for me) grates...

Kimmage is focusing on Sky for commercial reasons. The fact is that if he tries to sell an article to the sports editor of a British newspaper on say Rodriguez and Katusha or Vino and Astana their response would be 'Who?'

Personal grudges re The Sunday Times and Sky are merely a side issue.

I don't think there's much commercial gain to be had from tweeting. And it costs no money. Yet he still only has one focus there.

ddraver

Richmond Racer wrote:

after all. ddraver chap, we're apparently a 'cute little bunch' over here on BR

Would that mean that we look at, evaluate and form opinions based on Facts rather than just throw crap around hoping some will stick?

I'm happy to be cute if so (it's the only cute thing about me! )

mr_poll

disgruntledgoat wrote:

Here's the thing about T&R for me. Why is Damiano Cunego going to tell the world he cheated for the most memorable win of his career?

Isnt this the nub of the what will the T&R will be between WADA and UCI ? - that to do it you have to give immunity and go with no action and keep results. That way a winner will step up and speak otherwise they risk domestiques speaking leading to heavy sanction for those implicated who dont step up. AKA an organised no recrimination LA affair to learn and draw a line over cycling as a whole.

Might have this wrong but is it WADA who wont sanction the "no recrimination" part?

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

after all. ddraver chap, we're apparently a 'cute little bunch' over here on BR

Would that mean that we look at, evaluate and form opinions based on Facts rather than just throw crap around hoping some will stick?

I'm happy to be cute if so (it's the only cute thing about me! )

Lordy, man-up, er, man!