Kimmage on Armstrong

timoid.

I think he hits the nail squarely on the head with this one:

"My reaction...the enthusiasm that I had built up about the sport in the last couple of years has been all but completely wiped out in the last couple of hours.

Let’s turn the clock back to Armstrong’s last apparition in the sport. The Tour de France 2005. He’s standing on the podium. And he makes this big impassioned speech. Which is basically saying ‘The last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics, the sceptics: I’m sorry for you. I’m sorry you can’t dream big. I’m sorry you don’t believe in miracles.’ That was 2005, his last ride in the the Tour de France. And the people flanking him on that podium were Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich. And a month after that race ended the French newspaper L’Equipe reported that in his first winning Tour de France, in 1999, Armstrong had tested positive for EPO. Six separate samples taken during that race revealed positive tests for EPO.

This return, he wants us to believe that it’s all about saving the world from cancer. That’s complete bullshit. It’s about revenge It’s about ego. It’s about Lance Armstrong. I think he’s trying to rewrite his exit from the sport. He’s sat back and he’s watched the last two years and he cannot stand the idea that there are clean cyclists now that will overtake his legacy and buy the memory of all the crap that he put the sport through.

When I heard it being mooted first that he was coming back, I thought well that’s fine, because the first thing ASO are going to say is ‘sorry Lance, we’ve seen your results from the 1999 tests , you’re not coming back.’ I expected a similar statement from Pat McQuaid. What’s happened instead is that Christian Prudhomme has said ‘yes, you can come back, no problem.’ And Pat McQiad has said ‘I really admire this man, he’s a tremendous ambassador for cycling.’ What we’re getting here is the corporate dollars and the money that’s going to accompany this guy back into the game. The money that’s going to bring for Nike, one of the big sponsors of the Tour. And for the UCI, who have been experiencing some serious problems in the last couple of years.

Much as you want to say the sport has changed, as quickly as they can change their own opinions – McQuaid, who says one thing in private and quite the opposite in public, and Prudhomme – if they can change so quickly then I’m sorry, it’s really very, very difficult to have any optimism with regard to Armstrong and the way the sport was moving forward. For me, if he comes back next year, the sport takes two steps back.

I spent the whole Tour this year with Slipstream, the Garmin team. That wasn’t by accident. I chose that team deliberately, because of what they were saying about the sport and the message they were putting out. But also the fact that so many of that team had raced with Armstrong during his best years and knew exactly what he got up to. And the stuff that I learnt on that Tour about him and what he was really like was absolutely shocking, really shocking.

What’s going to happen now is he comes back and everybody’s going to wave their hands in the air and give him a big clap. And all the guys who really know what he’s about are going to feel so utterly and totally depressed. And I’m talking about Jonathan Vuaghthers, who raced with Armstrong that first winning Tour and who doped. And if you look at that Tour, Armstrong’s first win, there were seven Americans on that team. Frankie Andreu has said he used EPO. Tyler Hamilton has been done for [blood doping]. George Hincapie was exposed as a doper by Emma O’Reilly, the team soigneur. Christian Vand Velde and Jonathan Vaughters … both are members of Slipstream and would promote the notion that this was not a clean team by any means. When you look at that and what Armstrong’s done and how he’s seemingly got away with it, it just makes his come back very hard to stomach.

Astana’s the absolute perfect team for him. He’d be renewing his old acquaintance with Bruyneel, who wanted to hire Basso last year. Will he be renewing his old acquaintance with Ferrari, the famous doctor? Will Bruyneel be taking pictures of the questioning journalists and pinning them on the side of his bus?

When Armstrong talks about transparency, this is the greatest laugh. When he talks about embracing this new transparency … I’m really looking forward to that. I’m really looking forward to my first interview request with him and seeing how that comes back. Because that would really make it interesting.

This guy, any other way but his bullying and intimidation wrapped up in this great cloak, the great cancer martyr … this is what he hides behind all the time. The great man who conquered cancer. Well he is the cancer in this sport. And for two years this sport has been in remission. And now the cancer’s back."

aarw

where's that from?

Croxted Avenger

Hmmm - much as I agree with most of what Kimmage says here, his entire argument hangs on those 1999 tests. If proved 100% for real it would make Armstrong the 1st rider from 'the Brunyeel system' to be caught whilst in the employ of said DS. But even if proved the question of why it was sat on for 6 years is equally scandalous.

All the nudge nudge stuff about Vaughters and Andreu isn't proof either. However Kimmage is right to have concerns about the lure of the Armstrong cash wagon - the sport has to be credible again first, Prudhomme and McQuaid must surely understand how close we've come to being completely wiped out before they ogle dollar signs.

Last para was a bit over the top nasty. :shock:

Patrick1.0

The only cancer to the sport is the drug culture, and those who believe that to get anywhere you have to take drugs.

The only thing that can inspire an article like that is bitterness/hatred/jealousy. You tell me how you can be that malicious about somebody's "fight against cancer" if not any of the above things?

micron

The EPO tests were not, in fact, EPO tests in the conventional sense as was covered very eloquently in another thread. That they turned up clear evidence of Armstrong's EPO use simply confirmed what all the other signs had pointed to for years.

And, as Kimmage points out, you don't pick and choose 'transparency'. Of course real transparency would include opening up the Ferrari Files and disclosing his blood values whilst he was achieving his 'miraculous' Tour wins but monkeys will fly out of my butt before that ever happens.

And please, what is it all the time with the bitterness/hatred/jealousy argument - I live a very nice and comfortable life with a wonderful child, I have a good job that happens to involve doing hands on work with underprivileged young people with a variety of issues (including drug abuse, cancer and pregnancy) where I can make a direct difference to the quality of their lives which results in a great deal of job fulfillment. My dislike of Armstrong and all he represents for the sport has nothing to do with emotions I don't feel and have absolutely no cause to feel. So, please, can we try and engage in debate on these issues instead of the same old same old 'jealousy' argument which is neither clever or relevant.

idaviesmoore

I've always felt Kimmage was a touch bitter and twisted. He smacks of a man with mediocre talent who got battered in the peloton and could barely make the grade.

Rough Ride seemed to be very much a 'Me Vs Them' thesis. I can't say I've ever taken to him as a pundit

andyp

Patrick1.0 wrote:

The only cancer to the sport is the drug culture, and those who believe that to get anywhere you have to take drugs.

The only thing that can inspire an article like that is bitterness/hatred/jealousy. You tell me how you can be that malicious about somebody's "fight against cancer" if not any of the above things?

Can you type that with a straight face? Do you not think that the reason Armstrong divides opinion so much is that many people, especially those who have followed cycling for many years, think that Armstrong manifests that drug culture to perfection?

SunWuKong

I'm with micron on this. In all honesty I don't dislike Armstrong because he was in my opion a doper but because he seems to be unpleasant, arrogant, bully with a huge chip on his shoulder because daddy and step daddy didn't love him. I understand that to drive yourself the way he did needs some form of insecurity but he just doesn't seem like a nice man to me. I maybe wrong and would be happy if that was the case.

There just seems so much blind faith that he's the clean saint of cycling or a complete vitriolic polar opposite view. IMO both are illogical and certainly don't make for a useful debate.

Some of Kimmage's article make sense but he can't himself at the end, this then devalues (IMO) anything of substance he might have to say.

Wu Kong.

aarw

you don't turn pro if you are 'mediocre'. he is however, a tit. i agree with most of what the tit says though.

ednwireland

it was on a newstalk (irish talk radio ) morning news program

i pretty much agree with paul

"a cancer to cycling"

http://83.138.170.50/podcasts/audio/2509%20cycling.mp3

dulldave

aarw. That was quite surpisingly well put.

Patrick1.0

andyp wrote:

Patrick1.0 wrote:

The only cancer to the sport is the drug culture, and those who believe that to get anywhere you have to take drugs.

The only thing that can inspire an article like that is bitterness/hatred/jealousy. You tell me how you can be that malicious about somebody's "fight against cancer" if not any of the above things?

Can you type that with a straight face? Do you not think that the reason Armstrong divides opinion so much is that many people, especially those who have followed cycling for many years, think that Armstrong manifests that drug culture to perfection?

By screaming, "doper" at anybody who wins a bike race (without the necessary proof to constitute such a statement) you are effectively just accepting defeat in your own mind. "I can't do this because those guys are on drugs." I tend to take the view, stuff them with whatever you want, if I am a better cyclist, it doesn't matter. It comes down to an approach of both mind and body. If you are positive and you dedicate your life to the sport, like Armstrong did, more than every other rider, then providing you have sufficient talent, you will reap the rewards. Stop feeding me and everybody else crap about drugs. Is it really too much to expect of the majority of the fans and the majority of the riders?

If we focused on what is possible with our own perfromance level, and if we truly did everything to get the most out of it, I think drugs would be such a tiny issue within our own minds. To just continue rolling out the same old about doping, you're ignoring everything else which adds up to so much more than the effect of epo or steroids.

My stance is quite simple, do not try to cloud my mind with negative rubbish, OK?

NJK

Patrick1.0 wrote:

andyp wrote:

Patrick1.0 wrote:

The only cancer to the sport is the drug culture, and those who believe that to get anywhere you have to take drugs.

The only thing that can inspire an article like that is bitterness/hatred/jealousy. You tell me how you can be that malicious about somebody's "fight against cancer" if not any of the above things?

Can you type that with a straight face? Do you not think that the reason Armstrong divides opinion so much is that many people, especially those who have followed cycling for many years, think that Armstrong manifests that drug culture to perfection?

By screaming, "doper" at anybody who wins a bike race (without the necessary proof to constitute such a statement) you are effectively just accepting defeat in your own mind. "I can't do this because those guys are on drugs." I tend to take the view, stuff them with whatever you want, if I am a better cyclist, it doesn't matter. It comes down to an approach of both mind and body. If you are positive and you dedicate your life to the sport, like Armstrong did, more than every other rider, then providing you have sufficient talent, you will reap the rewards. Stop feeding me and everybody else crap about drugs. Is it really too much to expect of the majority of the fans and the majority of the riders?

If we focused on what is possible with our own perfromance level, and if we truly did everything to get the most out of it, I think drugs would be such a tiny issue within our own minds. To just continue rolling out the same old about doping, you're ignoring everything else which adds up to so much more than the effect of epo or steroids.

My stance is quite simple, do not try to cloud my mind with negative rubbish, OK?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. My opinion is that a lot of peoples opinion on Armstrong are blurred because he won 7 tours or that they proclaim that he is or was the best athlete so he would of won anyway.

How does anyone know he was the best athlete, any better physiologically that Redgrave or Cracknell, i doubt it. He doped to win all of his tours, quite straight forward to me irrespective of no failed tests. Forget the bitterness of journalists who were not as good as Armstrong, they know what has gone on and probably still goes on, there performance has little to do with any Armstrong argument.

Doping still goes on whether you like or not.

blazing_saddles

Patrick1.0 wrote:

My stance is quite simple, do not try to cloud my mind with negative rubbish, OK?

I don't think many would argue with your stance.

Have a look at some of these comments, at the bottom of the article and see if you can view them from the opposite camp, for a minute.
It's the average Lance fan baggage, such as some of these characters, below, that many people object to; their basic lack of knowledge and understanding of the sport.

Of course, you may see nothing wrong, in what is being spewed here........

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/25092008/ ... tador.html

Croxted Avenger

Patrick1.0 wrote:

If you are positive and you dedicate your life to the sport, like Armstrong did, more than every other rider, then providing you have sufficient talent, you will reap the rewards. Stop feeding me and everybody else crap about drugs. Is it really too much to expect of the majority of the fans and the majority of the riders?

Oh purleease. Would you mind detailing what exactly Armstrong did that constituted dedicating his life more to the sport than his rivals? Were they all down the pub while he was out training? Its massively disrespectful to his rivals to propogate this myth, who are you to question the professionalism of his rivals? Do you have inside knowledge or soemthing?

Kléber

The notion that someone was training in the misty mountains when others were shoveling Black Forest gateau down their gullets is a myth. Just because Nike sent a slick video crew to film a training session in the Alps does not prove others were sitting idly indoors. For example, Jan Ullrich would be perfectly prepared every July: doped to the limit and supremely fit to boot.

andyp

@ Patrick 1.0 - this really is you isn't it?

Patrick1.0

Blazing Saddles wrote:

Patrick1.0 wrote:

My stance is quite simple, do not try to cloud my mind with negative rubbish, OK?

I don't think many would argue with your stance.

Have a look at some of these comments, at the bottom of the article and see if you can view them from the opposite camp, for a minute.
It's the average Lance fan baggage, such as some of these characters, below, that many people object to; their basic lack of knowledge and understanding of the sport.

Of course, you may see nothing wrong, in what is being spewed here........

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/25092008/ ... tador.html

Look, I don't agree with everything that everybody who happens to be a "Lance fan" says. Not at all. I just take my own view on it. I think it's easier for people to accept that he was on drugs because the amount of work he'd have to put in to achieve the speeds he did, is too much and too intense for 99.9%. Maybe some know something that most of us don't, but the fact is, I don't start threads calling somebody a doper or go around questioning somebody's integrity because I have a hunch that's shared by many. If the evidence is not totally convincing, then I am afraid I am not the type to get hung up over doping or how so many get away with it.

A bit like you have said before, Blaze, there's too much focus on Lance Armstrong's return. I am not trying to appear above it as I post in many of the Armstrong threads but there's a certain amount of frustration that goes with that. It's a combination of there not being ample evidence, no matter which way you look at it, and the fact that people close up shop and claim: "can't be done," when they haven't the sufficient ability or haven't gone to the legnths that are required to attempt to do what Armstrong did.

On your point, croxted avenger, I don't have any inside information, I just know what is written and said about Jan Ullrich and what is written and said about Lance Armstrong. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory that most cyclists and cycling experts claim Armstrong trained more specifically and professionally than Ullrich. That's no great secret.

Croxted Avenger

Patrick1.0 wrote:

On your point, croxted avenger, I don't have any inside information, I just know what is written and said about Jan Ullrich and what is written and said about Lance Armstrong. I don't think it's a conspiracy theory that most cyclists and cycling experts claim Armstrong trained more specifically and professionally than Ullrich. That's no great secret.

Yeah but the Ullrich mythology - that he's eating pie and mash all winter - its the flipside of the Armstrong myth. Both are untrue imho.

But even if true, you've gotta provide evidence to back up the assertion that he trained more professioanlly than Pantani, Beloki, Hamilton, Vino, Mayo, Basso - where is the evidence of this?

calvjones

Armstrong consistently beat proven blood-dopers (including one he himself admitted was the physiologically most capable cyclist in the world), utilising a team that have in considerable part been subsequently proven to be blood & non-blood dopers. At the same time he consistently defended the Omerta on doping against anyone who spoke out (not just those like Simeoni against whom he felt personally aggrieved).

Either:
1 EPO doesn't work,
2 Lance's Christmas Day training sessions were worth 10-15% extra in the mountains,
3 he doped.

Pays yer money and takes yer choice.

OllyBianchi

Kléber wrote:

The notion that someone was training in the misty mountains when others were shoveling Black Forest gateau down their gullets is a myth. Just because Nike sent a slick video crew to film a training session in the Alps does not prove others were sitting idly indoors. For example, Jan Ullrich would be perfectly prepared every July: doped to the limit and supremely fit to boot.

Which goes to show that who did or didn't dope is irrelevant - Ullrich may have been perfectly prepared and doped to the limit, but he had the tactical nous of a stale bread roll and a team manager and coach who had less - which is why he lost every time.
Cycling, esp. Tour riding, is about the head more than the legs and that's where Armstrong had the beating of him.
After all, if winning the Tour was about your doping programme and nothing else, Virenque would have won a couple and Lemond would have lost to Chippaucci in 1990.

calvjones

OllyBianchi wrote:

Kléber wrote:

The notion that someone was training in the misty mountains when others were shoveling Black Forest gateau down their gullets is a myth. Just because Nike sent a slick video crew to film a training session in the Alps does not prove others were sitting idly indoors. For example, Jan Ullrich would be perfectly prepared every July: doped to the limit and supremely fit to boot.

Which goes to show that who did or didn't dope is irrelevant - Ullrich may have been perfectly prepared and doped to the limit, but he had the tactical nous of a stale bread roll and a team manager and coach who had less - which is why he lost every time.
Cycling, esp. Tour riding, is about the head more than the legs and that's where Armstrong had the beating of him.
After all, if winning the Tour was about your doping programme and nothing else, Virenque would have won a couple and Lemond would have lost to Chippaucci in 1990.

I have a fantastic head but I'm still a crap cyclist.

I don't think anyone is saying doping is the only thing. However, I'm not sure Johann's magical touch enabled a clean LA to go up the Alpe (or indeed along a flat ITT) quicker than a doped Jan. I just don't buy it, sorry.

OllyBianchi

My point was that a doped to the limit Lance beat a doped to the limit Jan because he was a more tactically astute rider in a more tactically astute team.

Armstrong beat Zulle by 7 minutes in 1999 not becuse his doping was 7 minutes faster, but because Zulle lost 6 minutes at the Passage Du Gois becuase Alex and the team didn't get to the front in time.

I'm not a Lance fan or the hater that many are, but I've been an admirer of his ability to be in the right place at the right time since his mid-nineties career as a classics rider, which often gets overlooked in the ever entertaining did he or didn't he arguments.

calvjones

OllyBianchi wrote:

My point was that a doped to the limit Lance beat a doped to the limit Jan because he was a more tactically astute rider in a more tactically astute team.

Armstrong beat Zulle by 7 minutes in 1999 not becuse his doping was 7 minutes faster, but because Zulle lost 6 minutes at the Passage Du Gois becuase Alex and the team didn't get to the front in time.

I'm not a Lance fan or the hater that many are, but I've been an admirer of his ability to be in the right place at the right time since his mid-nineties career as a classics rider, which often gets overlooked in the ever entertaining did he or didn't he arguments.

Apologies. I have no doubt Lance was more professional than most of the rest of the peloton at pretty much everything; hence being the only significant rider since big Mig to exit stage left with any doubt at all remaining over whether he doped!

Cumulonimbus

Has Kimmage ever written anything good about anyone?

I have a feeling that this crosses many other recent threads but as far as Lance's attitude goes i look back to the stage in 2001 when he cracked but only lost a few minutes (Joux-Plane). Other big names would have lost far more and in my fairly uninformed opinion i think that this shows the depths he could go to. This does not mean i think he was a clean rider though.

blazing_saddles

I think this post, encapsulates for me, the essence of the fanboy doctrine.
Just about every cliche, every distorted myth all topped of with a liberal dollop of their favourite "hate" label.

One Coreypine, to be found under the Eurosport article:-

"All you Lance haters out there - get over it once and for all, please! There is no question about it, Lance was the most tested person in all sports ever - and there have never been any positives! The man is simply a physical freak from birth - is all tests, he is off the charts. Who else weighs their food as to not eat one more gram more than nescessary. Who else was training in the high mountains in March, April and May when ther was still snow on closed roads. Answer: No one! You take the best physically gifted person and max out the training and you get Lance Armstrong! Oh, plus add the obsessed mentality which very few have. Give credit to the most dedicated, hard working and talented cyclists in our generation. Get over it you Lance Haters - please!"

I am particularly partial to the training on mountains, covered in snow, during April and May............
..............while most riders are climbing them competitively, at Basque, Romandie, Trentino and the Giro!
No, I'm actually angered by the fact it is so disrespectful and dismissive of the entire peloton.
If their mantra deserves a recipient, they'll find him in the mirror, not on a bike.

idaviesmoore

Blazing Saddles wrote:

I think this post, encapsulates for me, the essence of the fanboy doctrine.
No, I'm actually angered by the fact it is so disrespectful and dismissive of the entire peloton.
If their mantra deserves a recipient, they'll find him in the mirror, not on a bike.

But this author is no more a bike fan than I'm a sex god

volvine

i'm at a loss i'm afraid
1/ as far as i can see Lance Armstrong was tested more than any other cyclist and never failed a test
2/his return will be the best promotion for the sport ever (and surley the sport needs this).
3/i don't find anyone slating other great cyclist from even more dodgy era's in quite the same way .
i may be wrong in my comments but as far as i am concerned i cannot wait for his return a superstar in any circles in this great sport can only be a good thing for the general interest of the sport on a global scale

dennisn

If , as a lot of you seem to be saying, Lance could only have won with drugs, then he
must have been using "better" drugs than everyone else, who according to most of you
were doping too. It all makes perfect sense to me now. Lance was the only cyclist in the world with access to these, obviously, beyond "top secret" experimental drugs. I've heard that they work by actually changing parts of your body from flesh and blood into machine like members. This is somewhat dangerous technology in that it can be very hard to reverse, but for those willing to put up with the risks the benefits are enormous.
You simply can't be beaten. The only test for these kinds of drugs is that magnets start
sticking to you, but as yet this test has not been perfected. According to all reports that
I have received only two people in the world have been tested with these wonder drugs.
Lance and Micheal Phelps. Although in Phelps's case the drugs caused him to grow gills,
which allowed him to breathe underwater. This year Lance will be using a new, highly
exotic drug that that will allow him to harness the vast unused power of the human mind
to actually "will" the bike pedals to move.

Dennis Noward

volvine

very good

idaviesmoore

dennisn wrote:

If , as a lot of you seem to be saying, Lance could only have won with drugs, then he
must have been using "better" drugs than everyone else, who according to most of you
were doping too. It all makes perfect sense to me now. Lance was the only cyclist in the world with access to these, obviously, beyond "top secret" experimental drugs. I've heard that they work by actually changing parts of your body from flesh and blood into machine like members. This is somewhat dangerous technology in that it can be very hard to reverse, but for those willing to put up with the risks the benefits are enormous.
You simply can't be beaten. The only test for these kinds of drugs is that magnets start
sticking to you, but as yet this test has not been perfected. According to all reports that
I have received only two people in the world have been tested with these wonder drugs.
Lance and Micheal Phelps. Although in Phelps's case the drugs caused him to grow gills,
which allowed him to breathe underwater. This year Lance will be using a new, highly
exotic drug that that will allow him to harness the vast unused power of the human mind
to actually "will" the bike pedals to move.



Dennis Noward

:? Anywaaaaayyyyyyyyy