Irish times today !!! - interview with Martin Fagan

SnappyDresser

Martin Fagan took drugs that are forbidden to try to gain advantage against other athletes.
He was someone that I always thought could be a very good contender at European level but he never lived up to his talent.
He tried to take a shortcut and was caught.

No sympathy for him at all.
His protests about depression is a side issue. NOT RELEVANT.
HE IS A CHEAT. END OF. NO NEED TO CONSTANTLY LOOK AT WHO SAID WHAT, WHEN ETC.
His career is finished. He has been shown to be a gutless wonder.

thirstywork2

Yawn.................

budapest2012

I thought Paul Kimmage made Ian ORiordain look very uncomfortable in his defence of his Martin Fagan articles on Setanta this morning.

Izoard

Any link to the interview?

mattser

I thought Lance Armstrong made Kimmage look very uncomfortable not too long ago.

myflipflops

What did Kimmage say?

mattser wrote: »

I thought Lance Armstrong made Kimmage look very uncomfortable not too long ago.

When? If Armstrong had the ability to be uncomfortable it would have been Kimmage, David Walsh and their like making him feel that way.

Eamonn Sweeney wrote some some pretty unflattering things about O'Riordan in the Sindo today too. He may write for a complete rag but Sweeney is a very respected journalist and has always been a big supporter of athletics.

budapest2012

Kimmage questioned the validity of some parts of ORiordains article and only stopped short of saying it was a made up pr stunt.
Will be repeated on Setanta tonight.

SWL

It was on italk on Setanta. I think it is shown again later this evening worth watching, the topic is discussed for an hour.

Lance Armstrong making Kimmage uncomfortable very unlikely given the manner he came to prominence.
Paul Kimmage don’t get uncomfortable raising topics that many including people on this site are happy to believe. Like him or loathe him he is a great sports journalists and in my opinion a national treasure.

Kimmage don't believe the sequence of events that lead to the failed drug test and in fairness he had his homework done when questioning IOR who look very very uncomfortable.

rovers_runner

Typical rubbish from O'Riordan in yesterdays times.
The entire piece was almost a defence of his position and lack of questioning on the background of the sporting decisions, since when did IOR become a mental health expert?

For example, he is completely dismissive of plodders and how they lower the standards and good name of running, but yet he cannot apply these standards to an elite olympic hopeful?

TheRoadRunner

myflipflops wrote: »

When? If Armstrong had the ability to be uncomfortable it would have been Kimmage, David Walsh and their like making him feel that way.

I think he is referring to the Californian open a couple of years ago where Armstrong had a go a kimmage because he had referred to him as a cancer to cycling. That interview is quite funny IIRC Armstrong was supporting landis and some other drugy in their comeback in that race. Kimmage was not uncomfortable by any stretch and gave better than he took!

fiddy3

To summarise what went on on Setanta for anyone who missed it:

Kimmage grilled O'Riordan on the truth of Fagan's story, and essentially accused him of swallowing a false story. It was clear Kimmage doesn't for a second believe Fagan, and suggested he could have been doping as far back as his Olympic qualifier in 2008, given his missed test in 2007. This was in response to O'Riordan quite rightly pointing out Fagan was a high-calibre athlete before doping, unlike Cathal Lombard, a point Kimmage disagreed with, arguing that Fagan himself wasn't "at the playing field". A major contentious point was the buildup to the test, with Kimmage saying it CAN'T possibly be true that the drug testers called Fagan to tell him they were on the way, as this is never the protocol, and O'Riordan explaining the situation as told to him by Fagan with them arriving at his house and his flatmate telling them his whereabouts. Kimmage, it was clear, thinks Fagan is using the depression as a shield to deflect criticism and was lying about why he went to his friends house to dope, claiming he did it solely to avoid being tested while he doped. O'Riordan couldn't disguise his disgust at Kimmage's cynicism, and his questioning of his own objectivity, and was at pains to point out he was in no way friendly with Fagan and hadn't spoken to him in years before this blew up. O'Riordan spent the rest of the programme pretty much staring into space, royally pissed off. David Matthews was hard on Fagan, saying it was sad to see his peers excusing his drug use, but as far as I can see, no one actually did that, so not sure what he's on about there.

Kimmage raised some important points, but it's hard to escape the feeling that he just thinks every athlete and cyclist is dirty, and will have that opinion until proved otherwise. At one stage he mentioned in passing, as if to try prove that O'Riordan's article was full of inaccuracies, that it was USADA and not WADA who did the test, but O'Riordan quickly pointed out it was done by USADA on behalf of WADA.

Can't help wonder, with Kimmage's overall cynicism, where him and his buddy David Walsh were when the soccer and tennis players involved in Operation Puerto were conveniently swept under the carpet back in 2007, at a time when Spain was coincidentally rising to the top of the soccer and tennis worlds. Their investigative journalism skills and doping cynicism must have been in hibernation. Funny that the doping cheating 'stars' such as Pep Guardiola or Zinedine Zidane, or all the Real Madrid Dr Fuentes posse, are these days lauded as heroes while athletics or cycling druggies are viewed by Kimmage and Walsh as the antichrists. Then again, I suppose losing their press passes to the Champions League and World Cup finals wouldn't be too nice if they ever decided to spit in the soup of soccer.

plodder

Izoard wrote: »

Any link to the interview?

It's on again at 9:45pm tonight.

Tombo2000

fiddy3 wrote: »

To summarise what went on on Setanta for anyone who missed it:

Kimmage grilled O'Riordan on the truth of Fagan's story, and essentially accused him of swallowing a false story. It was clear Kimmage doesn't for a second believe Fagan, and suggested he could have been doping as far back as his Olympic qualifier in 2008, given his missed test in 2007. This was in response to O'Riordan quite rightly pointing out Fagan was a high-calibre athlete before doping, unlike Cathal Lombard, a point Kimmage disagreed with, arguing that Fagan himself wasn't "at the playing field". A major contentious point was the buildup to the test, with Kimmage saying it CAN'T possibly be true that the drug testers called Fagan to tell him they were on the way, as this is never the protocol, and O'Riordan explaining the situation as told to him by Fagan with them arriving at his house and his flatmate telling them his whereabouts. Kimmage, it was clear, thinks Fagan is using the depression as a shield to deflect criticism and was lying about why he went to his friends house to dope, claiming he did it solely to avoid being tested while he doped. O'Riordan couldn't disguise his disgust at Kimmage's cynicism, and his questioning of his own objectivity, and was at pains to point out he was in no way friendly with Fagan and hadn't spoken to him in years before this blew up. O'Riordan spent the rest of the programme pretty much staring into space, royally pissed off. David Matthews was hard on Fagan, saying it was sad to see his peers excusing his drug use, but as far as I can see, no one actually did that, so not sure what he's on about there.

Kimmage raised some important points, but it's hard to escape the feeling that he just thinks every athlete and cyclist is dirty, and will have that opinion until proved otherwise. At one stage he mentioned in passing, as if to try prove that O'Riordan's article was full of inaccuracies, that it was USADA and not WADA who did the test, but O'Riordan quickly pointed out it was done by USADA on behalf of WADA.

Can't help wonder, with Kimmage's overall cynicism, where him and his buddy David Walsh were when the soccer and tennis players involved in Operation Puerto were conveniently swept under the carpet back in 2007, at a time when Spain was coincidentally rising to the top of the soccer and tennis worlds. Their investigative journalism skills and doping cynicism must have been in hibernation. Funny that the doping cheating 'stars' such as Pep Guardiola or Zinedine Zidane, or all the Real Madrid Dr Fuentes posse, are these days lauded as heroes while athletics or cycling druggies are viewed by Kimmage and Walsh as the antichrists. Then again, I suppose losing their press passes to the Champions League and World Cup finals wouldn't be too nice if they ever decided to spit in the soup of soccer.

Eamonn Sweeney raises a very fair point in my view; that is the double standard between IOR's response to the Cathal Lombard/ Geraldine Hendricken situation and his response to the Martin Fagan situation.

The difference in my view comes down to this; that in the former cases his journalism showed a distinct dislike at a personal level particularly for Lombard, whereas in the Fagan case he his showing considerable personal sympathy. But the thing is, the offence is the same, and his journalism seems to lose sight of this. There was absolutely no effort to get the 'human side' of the story behind Cathal Lombard's doping.

As for Kimmage; personally I would be a big fan of his. I think his interview pieces for the Times are fantastic. I am a big admirer of his stance on doping, which even today can be incredibly unpopular. Without doubt in my mind he has been right to go after Armstrong in the way that he has. And I dont agree that Armstrong made a fool of him; he came across as a bully in my view.

Kimmage's sport was cycling. Cycling is a cousing of middle distance running, as it is of swimming. There is a natural overlap between these sports, and there is a natural overlap for journalists to cover these.

Kimmage has never been a football journalist. I am not aware he has ever written about Real Madrid good bad or indifferent. There are hundreds of football journalists out there. Its a bit much to criticize Kimmage for not highlighting doping in football when he doesnt cover the sport.

On the other hand, there a few other big anti doping crusaders in this country who got considerable mileage out of the Michelle Smyth story, and covered every recent World Cup and could easily have written this story......but didnt.

fiddy3

Well said. My point was mainly in relation to Kimmage and Walsh as a couple (given their partnership in trying to take down Lance) and the Sunday Times. I take your point that Kimmage is not a soccer journalist, but he never really writes about running or swimming either as far as i can recall, but that didn't stop him from developing a strong interest when he sniffs a drugs story a la Smith or Fagan. Their pestering of Lance is excellent, but it's amazing the way Walsh doesn't cast the same cynical eye over the doping soccer players who are now lauded as heroes in the paper he oversees, meanwhile writing cycling and athletics off as poisoned by drugs to the point of no return. I wonder if he ever sat in a soccer press conference and asked Zinedine Zidane about his illegal blood transfusions, or hounded Real Madrid players to tell him the truth about their visits to Dr Fuentes.

Dodge

I think thats down to editors and production staff more than Kimmage and Walsh in fairness. I'm sure Kimmage has strong views on it, but if he's only ever esked to contribute when its cycling, or an Irish athlete, what can he do?

I've absolutely no doubt that if an irish footballer faile a PED drugs test Kimmage would be all over the media

Tombo2000

fiddy3 wrote: »

Well said. My point was mainly in relation to Kimmage and Walsh as a couple (given their partnership in trying to take down Lance) and the Sunday Times. I take your point that Kimmage is not a soccer journalist, but he never really writes about running or swimming either as far as i can recall, but that didn't stop him from developing a strong interest when he sniffs a drugs story a la Smith or Fagan. Their pestering of Lance is excellent, but it's amazing the way Walsh doesn't cast the same cynical eye over the doping soccer players who are now lauded as heroes in the paper he oversees, meanwhile writing cycling and athletics off as poisoned by drugs to the point of no return. I wonder if he ever sat in a soccer press conference and asked Zinedine Zidane about his illegal blood transfusions, or hounded Real Madrid players to tell him the truth about their visits to Dr Fuentes.

Yes but bear in mind that Kimmage is Irish; therefore he is more likely to have an interest (or to be asked his view) on an Irish doping case, whether that be swimming or equestrian or running or soccer. If hypothetically an Irish international footballer or boxer was done for doping, you can be sure Newstalk or somebody would be on to him. Whereas if an Australian swimmer or athlete was done for doping, I doubt if anyone would call Paul Kimmage about it.

Tombo2000

Dodge wrote: »

I've absolutely no doubt that if an irish footballer faile a PED drugs test Kimmage would be all over the media

Apologies, I just said what you said.....oh well.

NickDrake

Excellent programme on Setanta last night. Hope many got to see it.

I have had a week to think about a few things and have spoken to many athletes and people have concerns.

Kimmage really picked holes in Ian O Riordans 'story'. It was great to finally see someone try and get the truth as to what happened.

Dave Matthews also said that the events were very strange and it was all a bit convienent. He also said he was astonished at the sympathy Fagan is getting from fellow atheltes.

I too cannot believe some are ready to welcome him back and stand up for him. We have seen the interview with Liam Reale in the Indo and Chamney's comments on twitter.Vinny Mulveys defence. But I woulld have a lot more respect for Matthew's opinion and view and he really was a great runner and not a good friend of the doper.

All people really want now is what really happened.

Kimmage questioned Fagan's missed test and suggested that he may have been doping before. Very interesting indeed.

There are many questions.

1 - Why did Fagan wait over a month to admit he took drugs. He waited until after the positive was announced. Why? Did he hope he would get off?

2 - EPO must be stored in a fridge, so was his friend happy with this? How could he hide it?

3 - How did Fagan know how much to take and how to use epo?

4- Micro doping epo is very very hard to detect but if a person is tested the same day and even the day after there is a chance they can be caught. Is this what happened?

4 - As Kimmage said there is no way the tester who have rang to say they were coming. Why the lie?

5- This missed test. Why was this covered up before? Why did he not explain this?

6 - Took epo and got tested the next day. Do we really believe this?

7 - Only took epo once. Never before? Never took any drug before?

8 - Why did Ian O'Riordan only report one side of the story? Surely more should be expected from a journalist?

9 - The complete opposite reaction by O'Riordan to Fagan than with Lombard. No witch hunt this time.

10 - Will Vinny Mulvey refuse to shake Martin Fagan's hand like he did Lombards?


I think Fagan should come out put to bed any ideas that we may have been doping for a number of years. In a cohesive and truthful manner.

What we want are the facts with no loopholes or media/pr twisting

All anyone is now talking about is his mental health and not the doping.

I feel sorry for his depression but to use it as the excuse that he doped? Keith Kelly his coach said he did not dope to enchance his performace. Can we really believe that? (said on newstalk interview). I really cannot and I find it in fact belittles depression.

People want answers and we deserve them.

Bella mamma

dedon wrote: »

Mod: Sock puppet account for NickDrake. Permanent ban

2 Years?

Pherekydes

Bella mamma wrote: »

2 Years?

There's no point. Once a cheat, always a cheat. I call for a lifetime ban.*


*May be pulling legs.

robinph

NickDrake wrote: »

People want answers and we deserve them.

People may want answers, that does not mean that the public has any right to any more information on anything.

He doped.
He was caught.
He admitted he doped.
He's banned.
...
He may be allowed to compete again after the ban, but probably will probably be limited on what competitions he can take part in. Has the Dwain Chambers v BOC case happened yet?

Any other information is none of our business. The only possible benefit I can see for him from coming out publicly about the depression is that he may get to present an RTE documentary on the subject in 18 months time or so. Other than that he has nothing to gain from giving any further information. But if him coming out about the depression highlights the issue and stops someone else ending up in the same position then that is a good thing surely.

He has nothing to gain from it personally, and there is no suggestion that he's trying to use it as a reason for getting the ban reduced or overturned.

NickDrake

robinph wrote: »

People may want answers, that does not mean that the public has any right to any more information on anything.

He doped.
He was caught.
He admitted he doped.
He's banned.
...
He may be allowed to compete again after the ban, but probably will probably be limited on what competitions he can take part in. Has the Dwain Chambers v BOC case happened yet?

Any other information is none of our business. The only possible benefit I can see for him from coming out publicly about the depression is that he may get to present an RTE documentary on the subject in 18 months time or so. Other than that he has nothing to gain from giving any further information. But if him coming out about the depression highlights the issue and stops someone else ending up in the same position then that is a good thing surely.

He has nothing to gain from it personally, and there is no suggestion that he's trying to use it as a reason for getting the ban reduced or overturned.

Nothing to be gained from it? Then why did he use it as an excuse for doping?

He only admitted because he got caught. Would he have owned up on his own accord? I doubt it as he waited over a month for the test to come out.

thereturn

The video footage of the Setanta coverage is up on thefreekick
http://www.thefreekick.com/board/topic/7328-athletics-thread/page__st__60

Pherekydes

"Chicargo" arrrgh

Dan man

This was a top drawer debate, offered much more perspective on the issue.

Izoard

Dan man wrote: »

This was a top drawer debate, offered much more perspective on the issue.

I like PK's writing a lot (always the first thing I read in the ST when he was there...), but I think he was guilt of assuming IOR is Fagan's mouthpiece.

If he wants to drill into Fagan's story, ask the man himself or his coach, rather than drag a fellow hack over the coals, when he obviously can't answer any of the questions....

NickDrake

Izoard wrote: »

I like PK's writing a lot (always the first thing I read in the ST when he was there...), but I think he was guilt of assuming IOR is Fagan's mouthpiece.

If he wants to drill into Fagan's story, ask the man himself or his coach, rather than drag a fellow hack over the coals, when he obviously can't answer any of the questions....

Agreed but o'riordan put himself out there on 3 articles and he chose to only write one side of the story. It is shocking in a way and as a journalist he cannot be taken seriously again and it will be impossible to believe anything he write again.

Regarding Kelly. He has gotten off very lightly and that interview of newstalk was a big pr piece really.

This should not be swept under the carpet .

Dan man

No matter where you stand on this whole debate, Kimmage has done a very good job in highlighting some important pieces in the story that don't stack up in that O'Riordan column.

budapest2012

I am a huge fan of ORiordains pieces but because he was trying to defend a story that is full of holes he came across as very nervous and ill prepared.The questions Kimmage asked were the same ones he would have asked himself had he been on the other side yet he didnt seem to anticipate them.
when Fagan feels ready he should do an interview with Kimmage/Sunday Times.Until then this issue will continue todivide opinion.

drquirky

NickDrake wrote: »

Agreed but o'riordan put himself out there on 3 articles and he chose to only write one side of the story. It is shocking in a way and as a journalist he cannot be taken seriously again and it will be impossible to believe anything he write again.

Regarding Kelly. He has gotten off very lightly and that interview of newstalk was a big pr piece really.

This should not be swept under the carpet .

How long a ban should you have gotten for having a sock puppet account?