Paul Kimmage live!!
Comments
-
http://www.rte.ie/radio1/marian-finucane/
This is the recording.
Excellent, best I've heard from him. Armstrong dozen't get the treatment at all, old news!!0 -
I'm one of Kimmage's biggest critics on this forum, and as such I felt an obligation to listen (I'm not afraid of contrary opinions).
As a whole it was an OK listen. He didn't go mental, but it wasn't that sort of interview. It was mostly about his actual cycling era.
Some points I'd pick him up on:
1. He said that he'd put a gun to one of his kid's head if they wanted to go into pro sports as it makes you narrow minded. Two problems - one that's pretty narrow minded in itself, two Kimmage's own attitude to cycling has been narrow minded.
2. He finished the Tour de France and his dad was there and he seemed to feel embarassed to be a lowly domestique - weird attitude.
3. His Daily Mail article after Wiggins won the Tour. He said he had to view the questions, his wife told him not to, he agonized about it but he stuck to his principles. Here's the reality - Paul Dacre specifically hired him to p!ss on James Murdoch's chips.
4. He said that once he'd taken amphetamine he realised its power and that he knew he couldn't compete with it. Yet even today he puts forward the best cyclist of that era - Greg LeMond - as spotlessly clean (and I agree). It seems more of an excuse to me (and I have conducted my own experiments in the past).
5. He said that writing Brian O'Driscoll's biog has given him a break from doping talk. Ha, ha, ha, no doping in rugby.
6. There's an arrogant sense of entitlement running through his life - he was good at cycling so should be a star (not a lowly domestique), he won journalism awards so should be immune from redundancy unlike the other 200 from the Times, and now, from the trailer of his film, his opinions are truth above the British journalists who have actually talked to people (I notice that Richard Moore flat out called him a liar on twitter)
With Kimmage,I feel he is willing to take responsibility for his failings but not his failures.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:I'm one of Kimmage's biggest critics on this forum, and as such I felt an obligation to listen (I'm not afraid of contrary opinions).
As a whole it was an OK listen. He didn't go mental, but it wasn't that sort of interview. It was mostly about his actual cycling era.
Some points I'd pick him up on:
1. He said that he'd put a gun to one of his kid's head if they wanted to go into pro sports as it makes you narrow minded. Two problems - one that's pretty narrow minded in itself, two Kimmage's own attitude to cycling has been narrow minded.
2. He finished the Tour de France and his dad was there and he seemed to feel embarassed to be a lowly domestique - weird attitude.
3. His Daily Mail article after Wiggins won the Tour. He said he had to view the questions, his wife told him not to, he agonized about it but he stuck to his principles. Here's the reality - Paul Dacre specifically hired him to p!ss on James Murdoch's chips.
4. He said that once he'd taken amphetamine he realised its power and that he knew he couldn't compete with it. Yet even today he puts forward the best cyclist of that era - Greg LeMond - as spotlessly clean (and I agree). It seems more of an excuse to me (and I have conducted my own experiments in the past).
5. He said that writing Brian O'Driscoll's biog has given him a break from doping talk. Ha, ha, ha, no doping in rugby.
6. There's an arrogant sense of entitlement running through his life - he was good at cycling so should be a star (not a lowly domestique), he won journalism awards so should be immune from redundancy unlike the other 200 from the Times, and now, from the trailer of his film, his opinions are truth above the British journalists who have actually talked to people (I notice that Richard Moore flat out called him a liar on twitter)
With Kimmage,I feel he is willing to take responsibility for his failings but not his failures.
It's kind of clear when you say he didn't go mental that you have no idea or maybe just don't care about the extreme stress he was under for 10? years or more, more if you go back to Roches dumping of him, it appears Stephen felt a need more recently to get back in with Paul, to much heat in his kitchen maybe!! The hostility towards him on certain sites seems to relate to who's clean time he is putting under scrutiny. The fact that Armstrongs era is being replicated by a high profile, star filled team, is of course nudding to do with the unveiled hostility. Your bit about Ode greasedkill is about the only thing I agree on!! Murdoch shat on him so why shouldn't he do the "right". thing. He might well end up being to Wiggins what Landis was to Armstrong.It is fairly easy to see the axe you grind, as to why you do it, well I don't yet know your connections and in cycling that is nearly always how these opinions get formed, because it is a filthy business with legs making the opinion , rather than the minds that don't always accompany them on their crusades!!0 -
keydon wrote:
It's kind of clear when you say he didn't go mental that you have no idea or maybe just don't care about the extreme stress he was under for 10? years or more, more if you go back to Roches dumping of him, it appears Stephen felt a need more recently to get back in with Paul, to much heat in his kitchen maybe!! The hostility towards him on certain sites seems to relate to who's clean time he is putting under scrutiny. The fact that Armstrongs era is being replicated by a high profile, star filled team, is of course nudding to do with the unveiled hostility. Your bit about Ode greasedkill is about the only thing I agree on!! Murdoch shat on him so why shouldn't he do the "right". thing. He might well end up being to Wiggins what Landis was to Armstrong.It is fairly easy to see the axe you grind, as to why you do it, well I don't yet know your connections and in cycling that is nearly always how these opinions get formed, because it is a filthy business with legs making the opinion , rather than the minds that don't always accompany them on their crusades!!
It doesn't sound like Rich is the one grinding axes to me. You've clearly made your own mind up about Sky, now you just need a rabble-rousing journalist to lead your fight.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I've never trusted anyone who constantly uses multiple punctuation marks!
I'm quite happy to sit and listen to those who put forward some real evidence of doping. You, however, it would seem, have found Sky guilty and convicted them without the need for it. There are some pretty convincing reasons to have an axe to grind over Kimmage, seems Sky winning is the only real reason I can see for any axe grinding over Sky.
I get why people don't like them due to the way they do things or their riding style but let's see some solid evidence before we convict them of doping.0 -
I have no axe to grind. They are just my opinions. I don't think my only connection to cycling - occasionally playing hockey with the manager of Newport velodrome - is much motivation for axe grinding.keydon wrote:
It's kind of clear when you say he didn't go mental that you have no idea or maybe just don't care about the extreme stress he was under for 10? years or more, more if you go back to Roches dumping of him, it appears Stephen felt a need more recently to get back in with Paul, to much heat in his kitchen maybe!! The hostility towards him on certain sites seems to relate to who's clean time he is putting under scrutiny. The fact that Armstrongs era is being replicated by a high profile, star filled team, is of course nudding to do with the unveiled hostility. Your bit about Ode greasedkill is about the only thing I agree on!! Murdoch shat on him so why shouldn't he do the "right". thing. He might well end up being to Wiggins what Landis was to Armstrong.It is fairly easy to see the axe you grind, as to why you do it, well I don't yet know your connections and in cycling that is nearly always how these opinions get formed, because it is a filthy business with legs making the opinion , rather than the minds that don't always accompany them on their crusades!!
I see you've fallen hook, line and sinker for the Kimmage myth he has created for him - the fearless crusading journalist (who has never uncovered any doping that wasn't on his own team) who has suffered for his integrity (the suffering is generally of his own construction).Twitter: @RichN950 -
"The journalist should never be the story" @velocentric
I understand that everyone who believes implictly and unquestioningly every single thing that comes out of Kimmage's mouth, is now to be known as a Kimmiber.
In fact, only the other day someone spotted the following in the visitors book in Anne Frank's House:
"She was a great girl. If only she's spoken out more against fooking doping, she could have been a Kimmiber"*
*possibly0 -
-
You mean currently coming accross as a complete and utter knob on twitter for a change at the moment. Honestly the more he tweets the more idiotic and obsessed he comes across. WTF is he going to do if maybe he just has to come to the conclusion that access to Sky for him was ultimately denied because they didn't want such a bitter twisted negative individual around them all the time?0
-
Sunday evening innit?
In Vino Twitteras“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
As per @StumpyRider:
@StumpyRider 2h
Oh, God, Kimmage's missus is at the bingo tonight and he's cracked the password on the iPad again...
Some of the Kimmibers are starting to turn away, despite the frantic efforts of the more fundamentalist Kimmibers to keep then in the fold....0 -
All truths go through three stages. First they are ridiculed, then they are vigorously opposed, finally they are accepted as self evident.
And the attempts at ridicool here are ridiculous, keep going!!0 -
Well we look forward to the day you can finally accept as self evident that Kimmage is a bit of an arse then.keydon wrote:All truths go through three stages. First they are ridiculed, then they are vigorously opposed, finally they are accepted as self evident.
And the attempts at ridicool here are ridiculous, keep going!!
Also, aphorisms are usually the argumentative equivalent of a placebo. They make you think you've come out with a good solid point when in fact you've just posted a bit of meaningless fluff. They're particularly favored by the hard of thinking and the intellectually challenged. It sounds good, it must be true....Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
That works both ways. Which stage are you at in the 'Sky have just put a really good cycling team together' truth?keydon wrote:All truths go through three stages. First they are ridiculed, then they are vigorously opposed, finally they are accepted as self evident.
And the attempts at ridicool here are ridiculous, keep going!!
Once again, put forward some really good evidence to back up your guilty verdict and the vast majority here will be only too happy to listen.0 -
keydon wrote:All truths go through three stages. First they are ridiculed, then they are vigorously opposed, finally they are accepted as self evident.
And the attempts at ridicool here are ridiculous, keep going!!
Most truths are actually seen as the truth pretty much immediately. And most things that are ridiculed actually turn out to be wrong. (Besides no-one is actually ridiculing)
Here's a question for you. Why is it you see that a man who has barely been to a bike race in twenty years, rarely speaks to any cyclists, attacks those that disagree with his views and largely only listens to a handful of acolytes is the most likely discoverer of the truth?Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:keydon wrote:All truths go through three stages. First they are ridiculed, then they are vigorously opposed, finally they are accepted as self evident.
And the attempts at ridicool here are ridiculous, keep going!!
Most truths are actually seen as the truth pretty much immediately. And most things that are ridiculed actually turn out to be wrong. (Besides no-one is actually ridiculing)
Here's a question for you. Why is it you see that a man who has barely been to a bike race in twenty years, rarely speaks to any cyclists, attacks those that disagree with his views and largely only listens to a handful of acolytes is the most likely discoverer of the truth?
Why would he bother going to a race or races where he was shit upon by the enormous sledgehammer that was Armstrong's fan club for well over a decade, everybody saw what was done to him time and again and we can only guess at what was said to him privately, as for Wigans, nobody comes from nowhere to do what he did without a permanent following wind.
The very obvious attempted ridicule of those who would prefer Kimmage to the omerta which has gone on more or less since the inception of racing, is much preferable to the incessent bullshit of those who believe Brittania has miraculously produced the two best GT riders of their generation and a team that only follows most likely because the team leaders ego needs more massaging than his legs afterwards.
The very idea that it might be believable is hilarious. It'll take ten years but the walls will fall and SKY will say they never knew and we will have Wigans bearing his cross on his bicycle and the charade will continue. It may not be the most corrupt sport but it would appear to be from the inside.
The bleeding dry of the poor obsessed fans is an exercise in cynical manipulation, not that unlike the charade which the bankers present to us as our salvation. If I do meet Wigans or Froome I will inform them myself and yeah I expect a similar a mouthing as Armstrong was giving towards the end but the truth is always worth it . So yeah bring on the fairy story and I'll show you the stretch marks if I feel so inclined.0 -
Who's this Wigans character?0
-
0
-
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
"In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0 -
Dorset Boy wrote:Who's this Wigans character?
Don't know, I thought he might be referring to that Bradley Wiggins fellow, but he seems to be suggesting he's "come from nowhere". Since Wiggins is one of the mosty highly decorated Olympians in history he can't possibly be referring to him.
Unless he's simply a trolling f**kwit.0 -
keydon wrote:Why would he bother going to a race or races where he was shoot upon by the enormous sledgehammer that was Armstrong's fan club for well over a decade, everybody saw what was done to him time and again and we can only guess at what was said to him privately, as for Wigans, nobody comes from nowhere to do what he did without a permanent following wind.
The very obvious attempted ridicule of those who would prefer Kimmage to the omerta which has gone on more or less since the inception of racing, is much preferable to the incessent bullshit of those who believe Brittania has miraculously produced the two best GT riders of their generation and a team that only follows most likely because the team leaders ego needs more massaging than his legs afterwards.
The very idea that it might be believable is hilarious. It'll take ten years but the walls will fall and SKY will say they never knew and we will have Wigans bearing his cross on his bicycle and the charade will continue. It may not be the most corrupt sport but it would appear to be from the inside.
The bleeding dry of the poor obsessed fans is an exercise in cynical manipulation, not that unlike the charade which the bankers present to us as our salvation. If I do meet Wigans or Froome I will inform them myself and yeah I expect a similar a mouthing as Armstrong was giving towards the end but the truth is always worth it . So yeah bring on the fairy story and I'll show you the stretch marks if I feel so inclined.
He should go to races so he can start behaving like an actual journalist. If he wants to find the actual truth, he needs to go and look for it, not construct it himself. Walsh went out and asked people questions about Armstrong. Matt Rendell moved to Italy and asked questions about Pantani. This is how these things are done. The truth is not found the Cycling News forum or from the words of your biggest devotees. There is a big difference between searching for the truth and searching for confirmation of your prejudices.
I don't want Kimmage to shut up, I want him to act something approaching the man he and others believe himto be and not a parody of a crusading jouralist operating at the level of Alex Jones*. In the trailer for his film he says the British media won't touch 'the story', yet those British journalists have asked the same questions (and more) that Kimmage will shout in the inevitable press conference 'showdown' that the narrative of that film has pre-ordained. And those journalists seem have come to the conclusion that there is no real story beyond lousy PR. (And the non British media haven't said much either). But that all takes effort. And playing martyr to 'omerta' plays better with the fan base.
Now, I don't think Sky are doping, but if I am wrong I hope they are exposed. I am also willing to have my opinions challenged - I subscribe to scentific method, not dogma - but it needs to be by something more substantial than the usual 'fairy tales, like Armstrong, not normal, fanboys' prejorative rhetoric with every increasing layers of conspiracy and a convenient 'we won't know for ten years' disclaimer.
There is only one person on this thread who has a hero they feel is untouchable.
(*The American political commentator, not the Welsh presenter of the One Show)Twitter: @RichN950 -
Dorset Boy wrote:Who's this Wigans character?
This is old skool Bradley baiting. Goes back to his Man U vs Wigan outburstFckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
iainf72 wrote:Dorset Boy wrote:Who's this Wigans character?
This is old skool Bradley baiting. Goes back to his Man U vs Wigan outburst
Get with the programme Grandpa, it's a dig at his glory hunting support for the crust munchers."In many ways, my story was that of a raging, Christ-like figure who hauled himself off the cross, looked up at the Romans with blood in his eyes and said 'My turn, sock cookers'"
@gietvangent0
