Paul Kimmage interview - Team Sky's charade has been exposed

135

Comments

  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,157
    yourpaceormine wrote:
    The only difference between Kimmage and some of the more acerbic contributors to this forum, is that PK said a lot of what was being suggested (elsewhere) to the Texan face to face. Does that make his opinions any more valid than yours and mine? No. But I do have a little respect for him for being the person who was willing to put his head above the parapet.
    But did it achieve anything? I haven't read either Cycle of Lies or Wheelmen but I have looked at the index and Kimmage is absent in one and appears on only two pages of the other. By contrast Walsh, Ballester and Ressiot feature throughout.

    Kimmage often likes to mention that he once asked Brailsford by text (with no reply) whether it is better to do the right thing or to be seen to do the right thing. Similarly is it better to be an iconoclastic journalist or to be seen to be one.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 18,941
    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic. ... 9&start=20

    Hey Hog/WBT/WCF :)

    Everyone, sit up straight, the Clinic are watching.
    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,157
    TailWindHome wrote:
    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=32559&start=20

    Hey Hog/WBT/WCF :)

    Everyone, sit up straight, the Clinic are watching.
    He's an odd chap isn't he? I blocked him once I noticed that myself and Blazing Saddles were the posters he referred to by name - as though somehow we were big game to hunt (we both used to post over there)
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    RichN95 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=32559&start=20

    Hey Hog/WBT/WCF :)

    Everyone, sit up straight, the Clinic are watching.
    He's an odd chap isn't he? I blocked him once I noticed that myself and Blazing Saddles were the posters he referred to by name - as though somehow we were big game to hunt (we both used to post over there)

    He has some relevant points about your responses though. Very Armstrong fan boy in style.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,157
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=32559&start=20

    Hey Hog/WBT/WCF :)

    Everyone, sit up straight, the Clinic are watching.
    He's an odd chap isn't he? I blocked him once I noticed that myself and Blazing Saddles were the posters he referred to by name - as though somehow we were big game to hunt (we both used to post over there)

    He has some relevant points about your responses though. Very Armstrong fan boy in style.
    He really didn't. And neither did you. At least he had some personality, unlike you.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    RichN95 wrote:
    Vino'sGhost wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=32559&start=20

    Hey Hog/WBT/WCF :)

    Everyone, sit up straight, the Clinic are watching.
    He's an odd chap isn't he? I blocked him once I noticed that myself and Blazing Saddles were the posters he referred to by name - as though somehow we were big game to hunt (we both used to post over there)

    He has some relevant points about your responses though. Very Armstrong fan boy in style.
    He really didn't. And neither did you. At least he had some personality, unlike you.

    Please dont get childish and personal, this is a good thread and it doesn't need to be closed by the mods
  • argyllflyer
    argyllflyer Posts: 893
    One thing that perplexes me in the current race towards hysteria by the press is that SBD never made a secret of Sky's ethics - they would do everything up to 'the line' but they would not cross it. Doing something that is not forbidden but increases performance is a marginal gain. Tramadol, for one, is not crossing the line. Zero tolerance was of doping that crossed the line and of hiring of ex-dopers. Whether the line has been crossed is a different argument but some of what is being highlighted is innuendo about things that would not cross the line or rampant speculation and dot-joining about matters that clearly would cross it, but lack evidence of genuine and malevolent wrongdoing.
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    argyllflyer wrote:
    One thing that perplexes me in the current race towards hysteria by the press is that SBD never made a secret of Sky's ethics - they would do everything up to 'the line' but they would not cross it. Doing something that is not forbidden but increases performance is a marginal gain. Tramadol, for one, is not crossing the line. Zero tolerance was of doping that crossed the line and of hiring of ex-dopers. Whether the line has been crossed is a different argument but some of what is being highlighted is innuendo about things that would not cross the line or rampant speculation and dot-joining about matters that clearly would cross it, but lack evidence of genuine and malevolent wrongdoing.
    Agreed except for the fact that sky was presented as a clean future. This is a Moral position which is totally at odds with a policy to manipulate or give the appearance of manipulating tue to supply ped. The moral high ground is washed away by the mysterious Jiffy bag because it casts doubt on the veracity of sky's claims.

    The dr being suddenly poorly and not attending the hearings and Bradley "it's ok to use drugs to bring you up to the same level as the others" Wiggins silence raise questions for many. It doesn't fit with sky's holier than though overtures.

    At best therefore, the statements about the way they would go about things are totally false, the premise on which we were all asked to believe and cheer is false and so it's no surprise that people think nothing's changed and wiggins and cycling as a whole is full of drug abusers.

    This is a very sad state of affairs for those who are not involved and are tarnished by the same rumours and accusations. Wiggins may be clean but his tue and Jiffy episodes tarnish him for many and in a world where celebrity is built not just on sporting achievements thats a fact he can't avoid.
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,114
    Back to the start then. No wrongdoing, Team Sky just might be ethically ambiguous.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,815
    TailWindHome wrote:
    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=32559&start=20

    Hey Hog/WBT/WCF :)

    Everyone, sit up straight, the Clinic are watching.

    I had noticed.
    Wcf not able to post here any more?

    Best line in there and bare in mind it is supposed to refer to this side of the fence:-
    From what he tells me, most eventually quit because by making it your 8 hour a day job to argue on a subject, you become passionate and stressed about it even if you know nothing of it.

    :lol::lol::lol:
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • Rodrego Hernandez
    Rodrego Hernandez Posts: 1,436
    argyllflyer wrote:
    One thing that perplexes me in the current race towards hysteria by the press is that SBD never made a secret of Sky's ethics - they would do everything up to 'the line' but they would not cross it. Doing something that is not forbidden but increases performance is a marginal gain. Tramadol, for one, is not crossing the line. Zero tolerance was of doping that crossed the line and of hiring of ex-dopers. Whether the line has been crossed is a different argument but some of what is being highlighted is innuendo about things that would not cross the line or rampant speculation and dot-joining about matters that clearly would cross it, but lack evidence of genuine and malevolent wrongdoing.

    It might be a smart arse answer to say that they 'have never tested positive' or that their methods are 'not illegal but maybe un-ethical' but as stated numerous times, Brailsford said they would be clean and transparent and have a zero tolerance policy with regards to doping / dopers.

    How can he rectify this with recruiting riders that he has stated he suspects are dirty? How can the team supply tramadol (a prescription drug) to riders knowing that it might affect they reactions in a bunch?

    Things are going to go from bad to worse for the team and it is all their own doing.
  • smithy21
    smithy21 Posts: 2,204
    Just let the clinic have this one and move on.

    There is racing on.......although I couldn't help but laugh that the Alaphilippe thread has resurfaced on the clinic :roll:
  • Vino'sGhost
    Vino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
    argyllflyer wrote:
    One thing that perplexes me in the current race towards hysteria by the press is that SBD never made a secret of Sky's ethics - they would do everything up to 'the line' but they would not cross it. Doing something that is not forbidden but increases performance is a marginal gain. Tramadol, for one, is not crossing the line. Zero tolerance was of doping that crossed the line and of hiring of ex-dopers. Whether the line has been crossed is a different argument but some of what is being highlighted is innuendo about things that would not cross the line or rampant speculation and dot-joining about matters that clearly would cross it, but lack evidence of genuine and malevolent wrongdoing.

    It might be a smart ars* answer to say that they 'have never tested positive' or that their methods are 'not illegal but maybe un-ethical' but as stated numerous times, Brailsford said they would be clean and transparent and have a zero tolerance policy with regards to doping / dopers.

    How can he rectify this with recruiting riders that he has stated he suspects are dirty? How can the team supply tramadol (a prescription drug) to riders knowing that it might affect they reactions in a bunch?

    Things are going to go from bad to worse for the team and it is all their own doing.

    exactly this
  • yourpaceormine
    yourpaceormine Posts: 1,245
    RichN95 wrote:
    yourpaceormine wrote:
    The only difference between Kimmage and some of the more acerbic contributors to this forum, is that PK said a lot of what was being suggested (elsewhere) to the Texan face to face. Does that make his opinions any more valid than yours and mine? No. But I do have a little respect for him for being the person who was willing to put his head above the parapet.
    But did it achieve anything? I haven't read either Cycle of Lies or Wheelmen but I have looked at the index and Kimmage is absent in one and appears on only two pages of the other. By contrast Walsh, Ballester and Ressiot feature throughout.

    Kimmage often likes to mention that he once asked Brailsford by text (with no reply) whether it is better to do the right thing or to be seen to do the right thing. Similarly is it better to be an iconoclastic journalist or to be seen to be one.

    I agree, don't think that his questioning of the Tedious Texan actually achieved much. Walsh etc al I believe we're more instrumental in casting reasonable doubt on the great American hero image.
    PK did put his head above the parapet when the vast majority were speaking in whispers, does it make him a better journalist? No. Did he have balls to do so? Probably.
    PK comes across as a one trick pony, a very bitter one trick pony (I don't know the chap, never met him, I infer my judgement from his published writing and his Tweets. May have the man completely wrong. If I have my apologies PK). The footage of PK/LA sparring in Tdf interviews being a cornerstone of PK's unique selling point.

    PK can probably ride a bike and write better than I can; but I wouldn't hold that as a mark of quality. There are better journalists (a purely subjective term if ever there was one) PK's contribution is no more than the noise coming from the clinic or from here.
  • yorkshireraw
    yorkshireraw Posts: 1,628
    TailWindHome wrote:
    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=32559&start=20

    Hey Hog/WBT/WCF :)

    Everyone, sit up straight, the Clinic are watching.

    without wanting to trawl through all that paranoia, I think the premise is that some on here are paid to write in defence of Sky?

    I see he's quoted one of my posts (that merely states some clear facts, rather than the perceived blind faith they assert). So when's my bl00dy cheque arriving?
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,196
    Kind of hard to debate with them in person. I've tried. Just becomes ''la la la la la la I'm not listening la la la la''.
    Like trying to debate the existence of God with a young earth creationist.

    Funny really cos it feels exactly the same when they start posting on here.
  • carbonclem
    carbonclem Posts: 1,605
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=32559&start=20

    Hey Hog/WBT/WCF :)

    Everyone, sit up straight, the Clinic are watching.

    without wanting to trawl through all that paranoia, I think the premise is that some on here are paid to write in defence of Sky?

    I see he's quoted one of my posts (that merely states some clear facts, rather than the perceived blind faith they assert). So when's my bl00dy cheque arriving?

    I think they are refering, not so much to here, but generally. The thing being that large organisations pay to have interns post aggressively on social media about specific subjects to defend they're honour. I guess its a real thing, but not so sure that Team Sky would be doing it? Maybe I guess?
    2020/2021/2022 Metric Century Challenge Winner
  • Rodrego Hernandez
    Rodrego Hernandez Posts: 1,436
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=32559&start=20

    Hey Hog/WBT/WCF :)

    Everyone, sit up straight, the Clinic are watching.

    without wanting to trawl through all that paranoia, I think the premise is that some on here are paid to write in defence of Sky?

    I see he's quoted one of my posts (that merely states some clear facts, rather than the perceived blind faith they assert). So when's my bl00dy cheque arriving?

    There's some at the clinic who are totally convinced that anyone who wins a race is charged and there's posters here who will swear that riders they think they know are clean.

    I've had people tell me that there is no way Dave B would cheat, he's committed to clean sport and there is no way that he would do anything remotely dodgy and that he's an inspiration to us all. Yet they have never met him.

    The truth, as is most cases like this, is somewhere in the middle.

    There are crack-pots in the clinic and there are crack-pots here, just at opposite ends of the spectrum.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
    there's posters here who will swear that riders they think they know are clean.
    Which posters? And which riders?

    The prevailing viewpoint on here looks much more like "we hope he's clean, we know he might not be, if we see actual evidence that he's not we'll believe it".
    The more enthusiastic defence tends to follow the old principle that the more violently someone in a small boat throws themselves to the left, the more violently you instinctively throw yourself to the right.
  • jimmythecuckoo
    jimmythecuckoo Posts: 4,712
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    Walsh is still a twunt as well though, and will be until he does some of the 'doping crusading' that he's built his reputation on, into Rugby. But as many have stated, he wouldn't then get his VIP tickets & hospitality.

    ...and therein lies the crux of the debate.

    When journalists stop using cycling as an easy target as its not as popular or influential as football, tennis et al, then I might start being interested.

    The history of the sport makes it a simple and easy win for headlines and clicks. That's not real investigative journalism.
    http://fendrieneu.home.blog
    My blog and pod...
    Beers of Belgium Cycling Club UK
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,196
    bompington wrote:
    Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
    there's posters here who will swear that riders they think they know are clean.
    Which posters? And which riders?

    The prevailing viewpoint on here looks much more like "we hope he's clean, we know he might not be, if we see actual evidence that he's not we'll believe it".
    The more enthusiastic defence tends to follow the old principle that the more violently someone in a small boat throws themselves to the left, the more violently you instinctively throw yourself to the right.

    There's certainly a few posters who post one liners to the effect that Sky are 100% clean (funnily enough they usually show up around July time...)
  • bobmcstuff
    bobmcstuff Posts: 11,196
    Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=32559&start=20

    Hey Hog/WBT/WCF :)

    Everyone, sit up straight, the Clinic are watching.

    without wanting to trawl through all that paranoia, I think the premise is that some on here are paid to write in defence of Sky?

    I see he's quoted one of my posts (that merely states some clear facts, rather than the perceived blind faith they assert). So when's my bl00dy cheque arriving?

    There's some at the clinic who are totally convinced that anyone who wins a race is charged and there's posters here who will swear that riders they think they know are clean.

    I've had people tell me that there is no way Dave B would cheat, he's committed to clean sport and there is no way that he would do anything remotely dodgy and that he's an inspiration to us all. Yet they have never met him.

    The truth, as is most cases like this, is somewhere in the middle.

    There are crack-pots in the clinic and there are crack-pots here, just at opposite ends of the spectrum.

    +1, to be honest. They don't like shades of grey. But that seems to be where we're headed at the moment in general, you can't be anything other than 100% for or 100% against.
  • blazing_saddles
    blazing_saddles Posts: 21,815
    Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=32559&start=20

    Hey Hog/WBT/WCF :)

    Everyone, sit up straight, the Clinic are watching.

    without wanting to trawl through all that paranoia, I think the premise is that some on here are paid to write in defence of Sky?

    I see he's quoted one of my posts (that merely states some clear facts, rather than the perceived blind faith they assert). So when's my bl00dy cheque arriving?

    There's some at the clinic who are totally convinced that anyone who wins a race is charged and there's posters here who will swear that riders they think they know are clean.

    I've had people tell me that there is no way Dave B would cheat, he's committed to clean sport and there is no way that he would do anything remotely dodgy and that he's an inspiration to us all. Yet they have never met him.

    The truth, as is most cases like this, is somewhere in the middle.

    There are crack-pots in the clinic and there are crack-pots here, just at opposite ends of the spectrum.

    I often wonder were this imaginary middle ground available, just how many forumites would stand upon it.
    No question there would be fewer that a few months back, but probably still a good number.
    Most here would readily agree that zero tolerance was, at best, a naive PR exercise that blew up in SDB's face and that this policy has led to the team being exposed as morally bankrupt..
    However, what we think or believe, beyond this, isn't the current issue.
    Given where the UKAD investigation is likely to end up ( a dead end), it is about whether this trial by media could eventually lead to sanctions or not. Or even whether trial by media should lead to that end.
    It seems to me that for want of a concrete, sanctionable doping infraction, it is being argued that the team's ztp means that they should somehow be held to greater account than other teams.
    Upon this, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of middle ground and it is not something I see many in the media searching for, any time soon.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • professeur
    professeur Posts: 232
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
    YorkshireRaw wrote:
    TailWindHome wrote:
    http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=32559&start=20

    Hey Hog/WBT/WCF :)

    Everyone, sit up straight, the Clinic are watching.

    without wanting to trawl through all that paranoia, I think the premise is that some on here are paid to write in defence of Sky?

    I see he's quoted one of my posts (that merely states some clear facts, rather than the perceived blind faith they assert). So when's my bl00dy cheque arriving?

    There's some at the clinic who are totally convinced that anyone who wins a race is charged and there's posters here who will swear that riders they think they know are clean.

    I've had people tell me that there is no way Dave B would cheat, he's committed to clean sport and there is no way that he would do anything remotely dodgy and that he's an inspiration to us all. Yet they have never met him.

    The truth, as is most cases like this, is somewhere in the middle.

    There are crack-pots in the clinic and there are crack-pots here, just at opposite ends of the spectrum.

    I often wonder were this imaginary middle ground available, just how many forumites would stand upon it.
    No question there would be fewer that a few months back, but probably still a good number.
    Most here would readily agree that zero tolerance was, at best, a naive PR exercise that blew up in SDB's face and that this policy has led to the team being exposed as morally bankrupt..
    However, what we think or believe, beyond this, isn't the current issue.
    Given where the UKAD investigation is likely to end up ( a dead end), it is about whether this trial by media could eventually lead to sanctions or not. Or even whether trial by media should lead to that end.
    It seems to me that for want of a concrete, sanctionable doping infraction, it is being argued that the team's ztp means that they should somehow be held to greater account than other teams.
    Upon this, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of middle ground and it is not something I see many in the media searching for, any time soon.

    Some things are worth shouting about (in society in general) because it's a process for change. If we all said fair enough, no technical rules broken etc. when something happens that we feel uncomfortble about, there's a fair chance nothing will improve. The upshot of all this should there'll be no more lazy record-keeping, lost laptops, accidental deliveries, stricter controls etc.
  • RichN95.
    RichN95. Posts: 27,157
    Blazing Saddles wrote:
    I often wonder were this imaginary middle ground available, just how many forumites would stand upon it.
    No question there would be fewer that a few months back, but probably still a good number.
    Most here would readily agree that zero tolerance was, at best, a naive PR exercise that blew up in SDB's face and that this policy has led to the team being exposed as morally bankrupt..
    However, what we think or believe, beyond this, isn't the current issue.
    Given where the UKAD investigation is likely to end up ( a dead end), it is about whether this trial by media could eventually lead to sanctions or not. Or even whether trial by media should lead to that end.
    It seems to me that for want of a concrete, sanctionable doping infraction, it is being argued that the team's ztp means that they should somehow be held to greater account than other teams.
    Upon this, there doesn't appear to be a whole lot of middle ground and it is not something I see many in the media searching for, any time soon.
    But what was the 'Zero Tolerance Policy'? And has it been accurately portrayed by the media that now beat Sky on the head with it?

    I always understood it to be a recruitment policy - of not hiring confirmed dopers. Nothing more than that. But many seem to believe that it is a far more puritanical 'whiter than white' attitude. Which is it?

    To my mind no-one who has listened to Brailsford over the years would come to the conclusion it was the latter. He's always given the impression that anything legal would be considered. (They considered breaking and reseting Ed Clancy's collarbone to make him more aerodynamic FFS)

    Toady's Viagra thing I don't find scandalous - it's exactly the sort of thing I expect them to consider.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 20,641
    dish_dash wrote:
    Now here is someone that can write.
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... amateurism

    Do you like Salman Rushdie and Will Self?
  • spam02
    spam02 Posts: 178
    I love charades.

    Want to play Mr K.

    Its a book - good

    2 words

    First word, a small word - um, The - yes
    Second word - sounds like vest? - er, Test

    Correct, it's 'The Test' - Brian O’Driscoll's autobiography?

    eh, what's that Mr K, you don't want to play anymore?..........
  • andyp
    andyp Posts: 10,114
    Rodrego Hernandez wrote:
    It might be a smart ars* answer to say that they 'have never tested positive' or that their methods are 'not illegal but maybe un-ethical' but as stated numerous times, Brailsford said they would be clean and transparent and have a zero tolerance policy with regards to doping / dopers.

    How can he rectify this with recruiting riders that he has stated he suspects are dirty? How can the team supply tramadol (a prescription drug) to riders knowing that it might affect they reactions in a bunch?

    Things are going to go from bad to worse for the team and it is all their own doing.

    But that clean and transparency promise was compromised before the team even raced in anger, when they recruited both Sean Yates and Brian Nygaard. How could they square their public PR with the recruitment of two people who had intricate knowledge of team wide doping programmes?
  • dish_dash
    dish_dash Posts: 5,560
    http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-s ... 14769.html
    Last night while I lay on the massage table in the team hotel, I read a good interview on cyclingtips.com with Paul Kimmage about the controversy in Team Sky. Towards the end of that interview Paul said that he'd like to open the Irish Independent this week and "read a big piece by Nicolas Roche about what he found there (at Sky), what he might have been asked to do, et cetera, et cetera".
    The truth is, in my two years at Team Sky I was never asked to do anything that broke or even bent the anti-doping laws, either legally or ethically.
    Maybe I don't have all the facts but something just doesn't add up.
    During the week, it was reported that Chris Froome was one of the riders who refused to sign a statement giving his support of beleaguered team boss Dave Brailsford and, in fairness, I probably would have done the same. If I've learned anything from the past it's that you can't put your hand in the fire for anyone.
  • dish_dash
    dish_dash Posts: 5,560
    TheBigBean wrote:
    dish_dash wrote:
    Now here is someone that can write.
    https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/ ... amateurism

    Do you like Salman Rushdie and Will Self?

    To my shame I've never read Rushdie, I somehow even managed to escape Midnight's Children which I'm sure was my school syllabus... and I prefer Self writing to Self speaking.

Categories