Kimmage running down rugby..

[RoboProp]

Didn't Kimmage take PEDs himself when he was a cyclist?

[leinster4life13]

The indo are really running with this, I guess they need something to take the heat of Dennis O'Brien and the whole Irish water scam thats going on.... And moral indiganation about sh!t that is none of anyones business is always a staple trope to take the peons attention...

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/o ... 02846.html

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/b ... 03283.html

An article a day at this rate, but ignore that messy little matter of your water being sold off...


Also did the indo not sign a deal to be the "official rugby paper" of Leinster and Munster? Poor form if it is, devoting all this space to scandel mongering, tabloid gutter trash.

[berniemac67]

[

Kimmage is not a prosecutor, a judge or a jury. His job is not to prove anything. He opens the debate, and we choose to discuss it or not. Simple really.

By this logic the man who yells "FIRE!!!" in a crowded cinema for a laugh is justified. Hey, he's not a fireman, but he just wants to open a debate.

And you're right, Kimmage is not a judge or jury, even if he adopts that position when it suits him, but he is (supposedly) still a journalist. And Journalists are still supposed to have a source for their story. So if you're writing about doping in Irish rugby and your source is a French guy who retired 15 or so years ago, maybe he's not doing his job very well?

with all due respect, your analogy isn't very appropriate. writing an article on the possibility of doping in a minority sport is not a matter of life and death.

you're second point is?

[berniemac67]

Didn't Kimmage take PEDs himself when he was a cyclist?

yes. he admitted it. what does this prove?

[berniemac67]

You're right that there are areas of agreement and disagreement, but I am not convinced you have identified them correctly.

I for one disagree with you on points 1 and 2 in your first list.
1) I don't like how he writes - I hate this human interest BS that Lance Armstrong thrived on. Just give me the facts. However, that doesn't mean the articles are crappy, far from it. I think they were very good and raised a number of very interesting and important issues. Did they prove anything? No, but that is not their objective or a requirement for publication.

2) Does anybody on here know him personally? If not than how can anybody say whether they like him or not? I don't know you - so how on earth can I know if I like you or not? I may not like your views or opinions, but I don't like many views and opinions held my some of my closest family and friends - agreeing to disagree is part of being a grown up.

I don't see where you arrived at your second list from. I don't think there is basis in this thread for items 1 to 3 as listed:
1) There hasn't been a discussion of the validity of discrediting Kimmage, and there has been no discrediting of Kimmage. All I have seen on these lines is criticism and abuse that reflects personal prejudice. Broad statements to the effect that he doesn't know rugby - why not, because he isn't a privately educated southsider (I am by the way)? Snide suggestions that he is bitter because he got jilted in the BOD biography writing race. Personal insults based on his appearance (transfat consumption). Simpleton namecalling - I do admit however that dangleberry made me laugh.

So strictly speaking I don't think you are correct, there has been no discrediting or discussion of the validity of discrediting him. Additionally, if we can't agree that personal attacks on a journalist are inappropriate then we can't really have a debate. The only place where such antics actually carry any weight is the House of Commons, and I would be ashamed to carry on like that even if it did pay handsomely.

2) I haven't even seen any discussion of Benezech apart from a ridiculous put down of him as some bloke who used to play rugby. He played rugby at a higher level than anybody contributing to this thread I would bet, and his court win ought to count for rather a lot in my view. Where else will his statements be evaluated and subjected to objective scrutiny? If the objective assessment of a court is of less value than random spoofing based on some alleged contact at a "high enough level", then the discussion is hardly worth having.

3) Of course journalists interpret and edit and editorialise; why else would we end up having our preferred news outlets? You ask if Kimmage has overstepped a line? You haven't said what line this is. Again the discussino on this point was confused. Allegations that he simply made stuff up abounded, but then it appears somebody actually read what he wrote, and it turns out he simply reported on publication of a book and some newspaper interviews by M Benezech and the outcome of his court case. All very normal in the world of journalism, but I'd be interested to hear what line he is actually supposed to have overstepped.

I don't think I understand this post. Your disagreement with part one is an agreement. I don't know what you mean by "personally". I don't know or care about the contents of any human's heart. All I really care about is what they do and say. It's all you can judge someone on. Not what they are "really like deep down inside". That's just projection. His writing, which annoys people, is relevant. He's a writer.
I have seen discussion of Benezech.

I don't get point three. But just to clarify: I don't think that journalists need to edit or editorialise explicitly in the audiences perception in order to veer from some journalistic objectivity. I think that the liberal myth of a liberal media in search of "the truth" is one that people should not really cling on to any more.

He overstepped no mark. Where people have reasonable problems with him, as far as I can see, is that he makes sweeping allegations, nod and wink intimations, about rugby but without having any substance or research to back himself up. As I said before it reads more like his editor said "write a story on this" rather than he actually went out and got himself a story and brought it in. It has just that much substance.

I don't doubt that there is a story there, I just don't think he went looking for it.

looks like you need to go back to the dictionary. you state the first list is things we agree on. we don't. i disagree with the first two points.

i disagree with your statement that we all agree his article(s) were/are crappy. i don't think they are. pretty sure i wrote that pretty clearly.

i disagree with your statement that we all dislike Kimmage. i don't know him and have no idea if i would like him any more than if i would like you. agreeing or disagreeing with him, just like thinking his articles are crappy or not, is an entirely different issue. so again, for clarity - i disagree with your proposition that we are all agreed on a common dislike of Kimmage.

it appears we have different views on what constitutes a discussion of Benezech. i'm happy to agree to disagree on that.

your journalistic points are kind of weak to be honest. first you concede he hasn't overstepped a mark (the opposite position was proposed in the post i replied to), and again i am not even clear what mark he did or didn't overstep. then you allege the nod and wink approach to his story, which is absolutely not the case - he read the Benezech book and interviews, he met with him, and he wrote an article. so what if his editor directed him or if he found this himself? your attack is not very different from a number of other negative posts in this thread that are based substantially on personal attack. you're entitled to your view of course, but it's hard to take people seriously if this is the best they can do.

your conclusion is good. i agree with you on part a, and i have no idea about part b. does it really matter? he found something, and possession as they say, is 9/10s of the law. this may turn out to be nothing or it may be huge, and i am sure we will hear a lot more on this topic before we know which it will be.

[leinster4life13]

What Benzach and PK are talking about are two different things, Benzach is talking about corticosteroids, painkillers etc, hence why he won the cases brought against him. PK is actually talking about gear usage and alleging its widepread with no actual knowledge of Irish rugby or rugby in general for that matter and then conflating that with creatine and protein to sell his story to the thicks and great unwashed that read the indo.
Fact of the matter is. Kimmage knows nothing about rugby, has zero access, kows nothing about gear, protocalls etc, so he is talking entirely out of his arse. His argument boils down to lads big=gear and a few failed tests, and lets not forget....THE SILENCE.

Benzach has a point about painkiller and I agree with him and spoke about the very same issue and how they are pushed on players in the Lance Armstrong thread we had on here, but as regards rugby, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, he has not been involved with the game since 1996 or so. so again he has no knowlege of training, gear use anything and again, has no access and thus is talking out his arse.

In conclusion we have two hacks with an axe to grind for various reasons making statements that there is doping in rugby and then putting the burden of proof on "rugby" to do something about it for some reason. Its bizarre stuff.

[fourthirtythree]

You're right that there are areas of agreement and disagreement, but I am not convinced you have identified them correctly.

I for one disagree with you on points 1 and 2 in your first list.
1) I don't like how he writes - I hate this human interest BS that Lance Armstrong thrived on. Just give me the facts. However, that doesn't mean the articles are crappy, far from it. I think they were very good and raised a number of very interesting and important issues. Did they prove anything? No, but that is not their objective or a requirement for publication.

2) Does anybody on here know him personally? If not than how can anybody say whether they like him or not? I don't know you - so how on earth can I know if I like you or not? I may not like your views or opinions, but I don't like many views and opinions held my some of my closest family and friends - agreeing to disagree is part of being a grown up.

I don't see where you arrived at your second list from. I don't think there is basis in this thread for items 1 to 3 as listed:
1) There hasn't been a discussion of the validity of discrediting Kimmage, and there has been no discrediting of Kimmage. All I have seen on these lines is criticism and abuse that reflects personal prejudice. Broad statements to the effect that he doesn't know rugby - why not, because he isn't a privately educated southsider (I am by the way)? Snide suggestions that he is bitter because he got jilted in the BOD biography writing race. Personal insults based on his appearance (transfat consumption). Simpleton namecalling - I do admit however that dangleberry made me laugh.

So strictly speaking I don't think you are correct, there has been no discrediting or discussion of the validity of discrediting him. Additionally, if we can't agree that personal attacks on a journalist are inappropriate then we can't really have a debate. The only place where such antics actually carry any weight is the House of Commons, and I would be ashamed to carry on like that even if it did pay handsomely.

2) I haven't even seen any discussion of Benezech apart from a ridiculous put down of him as some bloke who used to play rugby. He played rugby at a higher level than anybody contributing to this thread I would bet, and his court win ought to count for rather a lot in my view. Where else will his statements be evaluated and subjected to objective scrutiny? If the objective assessment of a court is of less value than random spoofing based on some alleged contact at a "high enough level", then the discussion is hardly worth having.

3) Of course journalists interpret and edit and editorialise; why else would we end up having our preferred news outlets? You ask if Kimmage has overstepped a line? You haven't said what line this is. Again the discussino on this point was confused. Allegations that he simply made stuff up abounded, but then it appears somebody actually read what he wrote, and it turns out he simply reported on publication of a book and some newspaper interviews by M Benezech and the outcome of his court case. All very normal in the world of journalism, but I'd be interested to hear what line he is actually supposed to have overstepped.

I don't think I understand this post. Your disagreement with part one is an agreement. I don't know what you mean by "personally". I don't know or care about the contents of any human's heart. All I really care about is what they do and say. It's all you can judge someone on. Not what they are "really like deep down inside". That's just projection. His writing, which annoys people, is relevant. He's a writer.
I have seen discussion of Benezech.

I don't get point three. But just to clarify: I don't think that journalists need to edit or editorialise explicitly in the audiences perception in order to veer from some journalistic objectivity. I think that the liberal myth of a liberal media in search of "the truth" is one that people should not really cling on to any more.

He overstepped no mark. Where people have reasonable problems with him, as far as I can see, is that he makes sweeping allegations, nod and wink intimations, about rugby but without having any substance or research to back himself up. As I said before it reads more like his editor said "write a story on this" rather than he actually went out and got himself a story and brought it in. It has just that much substance.

I don't doubt that there is a story there, I just don't think he went looking for it.

looks like you need to go back to the dictionary. you state the first list is things we agree on. we don't. i disagree with the first two points.

i disagree with your statement that we all agree his article(s) were/are crappy. i don't think they are. pretty sure i wrote that pretty clearly.

i disagree with your statement that we all dislike Kimmage. i don't know him and have no idea if i would like him any more than if i would like you. agreeing or disagreeing with him, just like thinking his articles are crappy or not, is an entirely different issue. so again, for clarity - i disagree with your proposition that we are all agreed on a common dislike of Kimmage.

it appears we have different views on what constitutes a discussion of Benezech. i'm happy to agree to disagree on that.

your journalistic points are kind of weak to be honest. first you concede he hasn't overstepped a mark (the opposite position was proposed in the post i replied to), and again i am not even clear what mark he did or didn't overstep. then you allege the nod and wink approach to his story, which is absolutely not the case - he read the Benezech book and interviews, he met with him, and he wrote an article. so what if his editor directed him or if he found this himself? your attack is not very different from a number of other negative posts in this thread that are based substantially on personal attack. you're entitled to your view of course, but it's hard to take people seriously if this is the best they can do.

your conclusion is good. i agree with you on part a, and i have no idea about part b. does it really matter? he found something, and possession as they say, is 9/10s of the law. this may turn out to be nothing or it may be huge, and i am sure we will hear a lot more on this topic before we know which it will be.

Nope. Still can't make any sense of this. Probably best to avoid summarising what I say, because in no case I think have you actually represented what I say.

Set up all the straw men you like.

[Donny B.]

[

Kimmage is not a prosecutor, a judge or a jury. His job is not to prove anything. He opens the debate, and we choose to discuss it or not. Simple really.

By this logic the man who yells "FIRE!!!" in a crowded cinema for a laugh is justified. Hey, he's not a fireman, but he just wants to open a debate.

And you're right, Kimmage is not a judge or jury, even if he adopts that position when it suits him, but he is (supposedly) still a journalist. And Journalists are still supposed to have a source for their story. So if you're writing about doping in Irish rugby and your source is a French guy who retired 15 or so years ago, maybe he's not doing his job very well?

with all due respect, your analogy isn't very appropriate. writing an article on the possibility of doping in a minority sport is not a matter of life and death.

you're second point is?

Are you a little slow or maybe just a bit lazy? If, as a journalist, you're saying there's widespread doping in an Irish sport, maybe provide some evidence that it's happening other than saying "well it's happening in this country, so the exact same thing must be happening in Ireland?" Is that clear enough or should I type slower?

[RoboProp]

What Benzach and PK are talking about are two different things, Benzach is talking about corticosteroids, painkillers etc, hence why he won the cases brought against him. PK is actually talking about gear usage and alleging its widepread with no actual knowledge of Irish rugby or rugby in general for that matter and then conflating that with creatine and protein to sell his story to the thicks and great unwashed that read the indo.
Fact of the matter is. Kimmage knows nothing about rugby, has zero access, kows nothing about gear, protocalls etc, so he is talking entirely out of his arse. His argument boils down to lads big=gear and a few failed tests, and lets not forget....THE SILENCE.

Benzach has a point about painkiller and I agree with him and spoke about the very same issue and how they are pushed on players in the Lance Armstrong thread we had on here, but as regards rugby, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, he has not been involved with the game since 1996 or so. so again he has no knowlege of training, gear use anything and again, has no access and thus is talking out his arse.

In conclusion we have two hacks with an axe to grind for various reasons making statements that there is doping in rugby and then putting the burden of proof on "rugby" to do something about it for some reason. Its bizarre stuff.

Kimmage heard that the Kiwis had a history of using gear, much to his disappointment it was Hosea and Rico

[berniemac67]

Are you a little slow or maybe just a bit lazy? If, as a journalist, you're saying there's widespread doping in an Irish sport, maybe provide some evidence that it's happening other than saying "well it's happening in this country, so the exact same thing must be happening in Ireland?" Is that clear enough or should I type slower?

I'm many things, some of them unpleasant, but I wouldn't say slow was one of them

Have you read his articles? based on your post I suspect you haven't or if you have then you appear to have jumped to conclusions and inferred an awful lot that isn't there.

[berniemac67]

kiwis using gear would not be a surprise, nor would anybody else for that matter.

when will the rfu and the daily mail stop running down rugby?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... ng-it.html

[the spoofer]

Clerkin and Kimage were on Off the Ball yesterday re PEDs. Its on podcast.

Kimmage said that he had tried to contact a prominent player who had lots to say about drugs last week but that despite lots of attempts he had no success. The silence!!!!!
( assume he was talking about Jaimie) It was a bizarre conversation with no evidence other than Charlmers son saying that he took the same stuff as his friends took. Damning stuff.

[Peg Leg]

Clerkin and Kimage were on Off the Ball yesterday re PEDs. Its on podcast.

Kimmage said that he had tried to contact a prominent player who had lots to say about drugs last week but that despite lots of attempts he had no success. The silence!!!!!
( assume he was talking about Jaimie) It was a bizarre conversation with no evidence other than Charlmers son saying that he took the same stuff as his friends took. Damning stuff.

Could be ROG

[leinster4life13]

kiwis using gear would not be a surprise, nor would anybody else for that matter.

when will the rfu and the daily mail stop running down rugby?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... ng-it.html

ah yes, the daily wail, that bastion of moral superiority and hard hitting investigative journalism. That piece is as devoid of substance as the kimmage one. he says there is a drug problem as for pr purposes one failed test is a problem, especially if there is a media campaign grinding in to gear. This is predictable stuff, if you followed the Aussie nrl/afl news coverage its in the same vein, silence and agreement is really the best position to hold against media led campaigns. journos like to feel important, indulge their egos, pat them on the head and this will die, fight them and it will drag on and on.....

[janeymac08]

kiwis using gear would not be a surprise, nor would anybody else for that matter.

when will the rfu and the daily mail stop running down rugby?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... ng-it.html

ah yes, the daily wail, that bastion of moral superiority and hard hitting investigative journalism. That piece is as devoid of substance as the kimmage one. he says there is a drug problem as for pr purposes one failed test is a problem, especially if there is a media campaign grinding in to gear. This is predictable stuff, if you followed the Aussie nrl/afl news coverage its in the same vein, silence and agreement is really the best position to hold against media led campaigns. journos like to feel important, indulge their egos, pat them on the head and this will die, fight them and it will drag on and on.....

One failed test?

According to this:

More than a third of all British sports men and women currently serving doping bans in the UK are rugby union players, raising questions about the pressure on young players to "bulk up" in order to compete in the modern game.

Sky News analysis of completed doping cases managed by the UK Anti-Doping Agency (UKAD) shows that 15 of the 46 athletes currently banned are rugby union players or support staff.

The majority of the bans were handed down to young club rugby players active at the lower levels of the game.

One promising player currently banned, Sam Chalmers, the son of former Scotland fly-half Craig, told Sky News that young players are under pressure to build muscle in order to compete, tempting some into using supplements containing banned substances.

Ten of the players and coaches currently banned were identified in the 2013-14 season, an increase on previous years, and bans as long as eight years have been handed down.

In one case a player from Nottingham admitted importing human growth hormone. In another a Devon county age group player pleaded guilty to using testosterone.

A range of steroids are also among the drugs identified by UKAD, with many of the players claiming that they tested positive after taking supplements intended to help them build muscle.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/doping-bans-h ... ml#fbGF807

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Clerkin and Kimage were on Off the Ball yesterday re PEDs. Its on podcast.

Kimmage said that he had tried to contact a prominent player who had lots to say about drugs last week but that despite lots of attempts he had no success. The silence!!!!!
( assume he was talking about Jaimie) It was a bizarre conversation with no evidence other than Charlmers son saying that he took the same stuff as his friends took. Damning stuff.

Knew this would happen. Jamie gets asked a question and refutes the allegation, so Kimmage latches on to Jamie as if he's some kind of advocate for doping deniers who's guilty because he spoke out....and then because he was silent. Kimmage needs to realise that people don't owe him anything and he really needs some proper evidence to keep this going because at the moment he just looks desperate and pathetic. It's a complete and utter joke.

[leinster4life13]

One failed test?

According to this:

More than a third of all British sports men and women currently serving doping bans in the UK are rugby union players, raising questions about the pressure on young players to "bulk up" in order to compete in the modern game.

Sky News analysis of completed doping cases managed by the UK Anti-Doping Agency (UKAD) shows that 15 of the 46 athletes currently banned are rugby union players or support staff.

The majority of the bans were handed down to young club rugby players active at the lower levels of the game.

One promising player currently banned, Sam Chalmers, the son of former Scotland fly-half Craig, told Sky News that young players are under pressure to build muscle in order to compete, tempting some into using supplements containing banned substances.

Ten of the players and coaches currently banned were identified in the 2013-14 season, an increase on previous years, and bans as long as eight years have been handed down.

In one case a player from Nottingham admitted importing human growth hormone. In another a Devon county age group player pleaded guilty to using testosterone.

A range of steroids are also among the drugs identified by UKAD, with many of the players claiming that they tested positive after taking supplements intended to help them build muscle.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/doping-bans-h ... ml#fbGF807

If you'll notice the key part of the sentence I typed was "for PR purposes one failed test is too many". That is the key issue here. No one actually gives a sh!t about doping, and why should they, its a non issue, how does it effect you or me, it doesnt, but because the press is run on a moral outrage basis and sponsors are very brand concious, for any rugby body one failed test is one too many.


Also, look into doping cases of those rugby players and tell me what substances they are for, If you recall a lad from Blackrock RFC was laughably(not for him, but making a mockery of the process) for taking a "pre workout" which did not contain any actual performance enhancers, it was a stimulant arbitrarily deemed performance enhancing, this chap wasnt doing anything wrong, an utter joke of a decision, how many are banned for something as stupid. As for the lads getting banned for actually juicing, they are idiots for getting caught, its pretty simple math or buy a product that cant be detected, I have no sympathy for them.

[janeymac08]

Clerkin and Kimage were on Off the Ball yesterday re PEDs. Its on podcast.

Kimmage said that he had tried to contact a prominent player who had lots to say about drugs last week but that despite lots of attempts he had no success. The silence!!!!!
( assume he was talking about Jaimie) It was a bizarre conversation with no evidence other than Charlmers son saying that he took the same stuff as his friends took. Damning stuff.

Knew this would happen. Jamie gets asked a question and refutes the allegation, so Kimmage latches on to Jamie as if he's some kind of advocate for doping deniers who's guilty because he spoke out....and then because he was silent. Kimmage needs to realise that people don't owe him anything and he really needs some proper evidence to keep this going because at the moment he just looks desperate and pathetic. It's a complete and utter joke.

I've heard 3 ex-players (ROG, Jackman & Bressie) say that it needs to be looked into and the cheaters need to be stopped. (By the way, all said that Kimmage is a very good journalist and he should be listened to). Bressie said that he was under a lot of pressure as a 16/17 year old to get bigger, but his mother would not let him use creatine because of the side effects (he noted depression is one of them).

[All Blacks nil]

As for the lads getting banned for actually juicing, they are idiots for getting caught, its pretty simple math or buy a product that cant be detected, I have no sympathy for them.

Quote from a poster above.

Wouldn't you love this guy to be coaching your team.

[leinster4life13]

As for the lads getting banned for actually juicing, they are idiots for getting caught, its pretty simple math or buy a product that cant be detected, I have no sympathy for them.

Quote from a poster above.

Wouldn't you love this guy to be coaching your team.

Its 2014, the anti doping ship has long since sailed, grow up. If anyone was serious about ending "doping", it would be done, but it wont be, because while incrementalism may be accepted in tort, its not accepted in athletics and big time televised sport, there is far too much money at stake, no matter what the poor saps like Kimmage purport to think (publicly). Kimmage, WADA and all the other zealots should just give up, but, like all quangos, they wont, because the position of "moral" righteousness is worth a fair few quid at the end of the day, a nice little earner for all concerned.

Why write about stuff that matters when you can be a moral crusader!
Or
Why do actual science when you can work in a private lab, creaming it by testing the piss and blood of people who run around and kick balls.... I mean there is no way all this bllod testing money and infrastructure could be put to better use, is there...

INB4 Helen Lovejoy with the "think of the children" argument, that is the last bastion of lost debate...