Kimmage on Armstrong
Comments
-
Tom Butcher wrote:for Kimmage it's all black and white - all about good guys and bad guys rather than people. His analysis of the sport and doping is so simplistic it's just not interesting - there's no appreciation of the history of the sport and how it got where it is - no honest appreciation of the problems faced by all sports.
I agree about a simplistic approach, but in the end it is simple. Whatever the history of doping in pro cycling (and as we know there never was no doping), you either believe doping is aceptable or that it's cheating. Right or wrong. You could make the argument that history is irrelevant - does the fact that a child abuser was the abused child of an abused child make it right? Mind you, he does seem to focus rather too much on certain individuals which easily creates the impression of vindictiveness (who knows, it might BE personal).
If nothing else Kimmage stirs up debate amongst cyclists anyway.Take care,
Steve.0 -
-
Kimmage writes about sports other than cycling you know. He co-wrote the acclaimed and award winning Tony Cascarino autobiography for a start.OllyBianchi wrote:Acutally, Kimmage can be viewed as part of the problem as much as anyone else - if cycling is clean he's out of a job so it's in his interests to find as many bad stories as possible becuase his USP as a freelancer is 'the dirty cycling guy'.0 -
andyp wrote:
Kimmage writes about sports other than cycling you know. He co-wrote the acclaimed and award winning Tony Cascarino autobiography for a start.OllyBianchi wrote:Acutally, Kimmage can be viewed as part of the problem as much as anyone else - if cycling is clean he's out of a job so it's in his interests to find as many bad stories as possible becuase his USP as a freelancer is 'the dirty cycling guy'.
He also did Roy Keane's, didn't he... I do know cycling's not his only sport, but it's what's made his name.0 -
BenBlyth wrote:You know the sort, putting forward some 'in the know' comment that then implies those who disagree clearly know nothing about cycling. Normally followed by lots of :roll: :roll: :roll: ...... :roll:
So, what's his motivation for coming back?
1. He needs the money? Unlikely IMHO
2. He's got a point to prove about his ability as a rider? Doubtful
3. He craves attention? Possible. They say there's no such thing as bad publicity...and let's face it LA has suffered more than his fair share of the 'Slings And Arrows Of Outrageous Fortunes' He's got broad shoulders (for a cyclist
)
4. Publicity stunt. Publicity stunts have a nasty habit of ending up as 'Damp Squibs'. LA surely knows this.
5. He genuinly feels he can win an 8th TDF..................................
The thing is, LA has got really big shoes to fill, and they're his own. Why would anyone want to come back into a sport that is arguably the hardest sport in the world (The Ironman Championship notwithstanding) having achieved what he has? And at his age? And in this drug cynical culture? :?
I'm genuinely interested
'How can an opinion be bullsh1t?' High Fidelity0 -
Possibly linked in, 6 - to prove that at a time when Cycling is viewed as getting cleaner, he can still compete and finaly prove (in his opinion) he never doped?0
-
Steve Tcp wrote:I agree about a simplistic approach, but in the end it is simple. Whatever the history of doping in pro cycling (and as we know there never was no doping), you either believe doping is aceptable or that it's cheating. Right or wrong. You could make the argument that history is irrelevant - does the fact that a child abuser was the abused child of an abused child make it right? Mind you, he does seem to focus rather too much on certain individuals which easily creates the impression of vindictiveness (who knows, it might BE personal).
If nothing else Kimmage stirs up debate amongst cyclists anyway.
But if you agree there never was a time when cycling was doping free then it's a bit unfair to paint Armstrong as some kind of anti Christ when all he was doing was what if not every other rider at the time then certainly what the majority were doing. Has there ever been a current rider who has voluntarily come forwards and said I am/was a doper during their career - did Kimmage do it himself ?
And again where does Kimmage get the inside track on Armstrong's motivation ? Of course he doesn't have one. In fact if you look at what he says it's pretty clear it's a load of cobblers and that put simply Kimmage doesn't like Armstrong and he's just saying whatever he can to paint him in a bad light. And why doesn't he like Armstrong - oh yeah for doing what just about every other cyclist was doing including by his own admission himself !
I don't think Kimmage does stir up debate other than over whether he's a shit stirrer and a shit journalist or not. I don't know about his acclaimed biographies - I thought Rough Ride was good but his journalism doesn't add anything in terms of knowledge or perspective and imo is just tabloidesque trash.
edit - yeah yeah I shouldn't swear but shoot is not a good substitute !!
it's a hard life if you don't weaken.0 -
OllyBianchi wrote:andyp wrote:
Kimmage writes about sports other than cycling you know. He co-wrote the acclaimed and award winning Tony Cascarino autobiography for a start.OllyBianchi wrote:Acutally, Kimmage can be viewed as part of the problem as much as anyone else - if cycling is clean he's out of a job so it's in his interests to find as many bad stories as possible becuase his USP as a freelancer is 'the dirty cycling guy'.
He also did Roy Keane's, didn't he... I do know cycling's not his only sport, but it's what's made his name.
Keane's biog was written by Eamonn Dunphy, but Kimmage also wrote an Andy Townsend biog, IIRC. His interview with Roy Keane in Saipan was probably the spark that resulted in Keane quitting the Irish squad (not 'cos of what Kimmage wrote but another paper pulled quotes out of context and did a hatchet job on Keanes marriage).
Even when Kimmage was working in Ireland and was best known for being a cyclist, the vast majority of his writing was about other sports, soccer, Gaelic football, golf, horse racing etc. I'd be surprised if cycling has been more than 10-20% of Kimmages output over his career.
In way, cycling has made his name, but not directly. Apparently Kimmage gets better access to other sportspeople than most journos because he's been a professional sportsman.'This week I 'ave been mostly been climbing like Basso - Shirley Basso.'0 -
LangerDan wrote:OllyBianchi wrote:andyp wrote:
Kimmage writes about sports other than cycling you know. He co-wrote the acclaimed and award winning Tony Cascarino autobiography for a start.OllyBianchi wrote:Acutally, Kimmage can be viewed as part of the problem as much as anyone else - if cycling is clean he's out of a job so it's in his interests to find as many bad stories as possible becuase his USP as a freelancer is 'the dirty cycling guy'.
He also did Roy Keane's, didn't he... I do know cycling's not his only sport, but it's what's made his name.
Keane's biog was written by Eamonn Dunphy, but Kimmage also wrote an Andy Townsend biog, IIRC. His interview with Roy Keane in Saipan was probably the spark that resulted in Keane quitting the Irish squad (not 'cos of what Kimmage wrote but another paper pulled quotes out of context and did a hatchet job on Keanes marriage).
Even when Kimmage was working in Ireland and was best known for being a cyclist, the vast majority of his writing was about other sports, soccer, Gaelic football, golf, horse racing etc. I'd be surprised if cycling has been more than 10-20% of Kimmages output over his career.
In way, cycling has made his name, but not directly. Apparently Kimmage gets better access to other sportspeople than most journos because he's been a professional sportsman.
I dare say he is a bit ham-fisted at times, but i think he's more p*ssed off at the way he was treated after the book was first published, than by anything else. The fact is that cycling is entirely responsible for the mess that it's been in, especially over the last ten years. Until cheating is accepted as the pariah it is from within the sport, I don't think anything will change.0 -
OllyBianchi wrote:Acutally, Kimmage can be viewed as part of the problem as much as anyone else - if cycling is clean he's out of a job so it's in his interests to find as many bad stories as possible becuase his USP as a freelancer is 'the dirty cycling guy'.
If this is true, then Kimmage has a job for life.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Timoid. wrote:OllyBianchi wrote:Acutally, Kimmage can be viewed as part of the problem as much as anyone else - if cycling is clean he's out of a job so it's in his interests to find as many bad stories as possible becuase his USP as a freelancer is 'the dirty cycling guy'.
If this is true, then Kimmage has a job for life.
Sadly I think you're right
0 -
Tom Butcher wrote:But if you agree there never was a time when cycling was doping free then it's a bit unfair to paint Armstrong as some kind of anti Christ when all he was doing was what if not every other rider at the time then certainly what the majority were doing. Has there ever been a current rider who has voluntarily come forwards and said I am/was a doper during their career - did Kimmage do it himself ?
Well it's been a while since I read Rough Ride but I think Kimmage did admit to doping, yes. Wasn't that the whole crux of the book? As for Armstrong I'm not painting him as some sort of anti christ, (Kimmage doesn't just single out Armstrong btw in all his articles, it's just that LA is topical at the moment for some reason) but the vast majority of dopers keep quite on all fronts - the Peloton Omerta means you can't (or perhaps couldn't - things are changing) be vociferously anti drugs without getting the cold shoulder a la Basson. Now I know it's not Armstrong's responsibilty to lead an anti doping camp from within the pro ranks, but such a clean guy as he claims to be could at least have opted out of the aforementioned Omerta, but he didn't. He stayed part of the "never talk about doping" stance. It's just my opinion, but the way he publicly humiliated Simioni was not the reaction of an innocent man, more of a worried man using his position to turn the TDF Peloton into a huge bunch of bullies. Then, iirc, he ground him into legal submission, not by proving his own innocence, but by overpowering him with costly legal technicalities (or was it an out of court settlement, I can't quite remember). I appreciate that he gets more flak about doping than most riders, but he blows his own "I'm clean to Saintly levels" trumpet more than most too. To do that you've got to be squeaky clean, and he simply isn't, even if the dirt is circumstantial (which just makes it legally unreliebale but not necessarily unreliable). It just strikes me that he could easily have gone a long way to proving his innocence by simply whistle blowing, by presenting those Ferrari records that related to him and perhaps explaining why those 1999 test results were so high rather than why they couldn't be used legally against him.
I know the history of cycling is awash with stimulant use, are you saying that makes the systematic use of more and better drugs acceptable, and that it's not cheating? Or are you saying that it is cheating but it's ok because cyclists have always cheated? Either way it's a bit like saying "it's ok to persecute Jews, they've been persecuted for thousands of years". If it's against the rules it is cheating, and 100 plus years of wrongs don't make it right, just as "everybody dopes so it's a level playing field" is false too (Tyler Hamilton's 2004 drugs bill was higher than the average domestique's annual salary).
Of course the really sad thing is that if LA comes back and wins the TDF next year at the age of 38 will anybody believe he did it clean?Take care,
Steve.0 -
Croxted Avenger wrote:
Perhaps Sky invested because finally the sport looked a teeny bit clean again? Perhaps cycling on telly will equally get a ratings boost beause its attempted to get its house in order and it actually started to be A RACE instead of a freak show.Perhaps more people would ride their bikes (where did anyone say that was a bad thing???) because they were inspired by close racing and riders they could believe weren't juiced?
Perhaps you've been in a coma (albeit one where you leant to type in a patronising manner) but on my planet the sport has come as close as it dare to being rubbished out of exisitence by this keep the bucks flowing in and ignore the doping attitude typified by Verbruggen and contined by flapper McQuaid. If the sport isn't clean its not worth sh*t to anybody, firstly the public and secondly long term sponsors who will provide long term benefits. LA is not going to bring long term money to the sport and isn't going to inspire newbies like some lycra pied piper (explain why more people are cycling now then when he was at his zenith?). He will bring short term gain - mainly to him and his interests.
As for the tea I can't comment, I'm a coffee man.
Last point first: you are wrong. Look at Trek bike sales for the period 199-2005 and tell me that he didn't inspire people to take up cycling again. Look around any cycle club or forum and count the number of trek bikes or people who got back into cycling in some way connected to Armstrong's period in the sport.
Sky's reasoning for investing is that they saw that Team GB was likely to be hitting almighty pay dirt on the track and that cycling was about to get massive exposure on an unprecendented scale. It's a simple economic decision to expand their brand recognition and their profile as a socially responsible organisation.
In all other respects cycling figures had fallen once Armstrong retired from the sport - sponsorship, audience, revenue. It might have been "cleaning itself up" or however people want to put it but it was still in the dumper (and as Olly says its governance has not interest in it being truly clean) in every other aspect.
Road racing as a sport was on its arse before Armstrong came back and the period of stability he offered (regardless of anything else) almost certainly stopped a lot more of the sport going to the wall.
If you're a team management team you don't go asking for one year's money, you go for multiples, so rates will go up next year with increased exposure. New sponsors will lock in for more money because they know it's better returns
Sponsors only stay long-term because it makes economic sense to or for reasons of specific national interest (Rabobank, Lotto). If you think they do it "for the good of the sport" or other sentimental reasons you a seriously overrating how they feel about the sport. T-Mobile were long term sponsors and sponsors of one the biggest dopers in the sport. The moment it burnt their brand they bailed faster than a novice bomber crew.
your planet must be a strange place if you missed those periods (1997-99 and 2006-07) when the sport was really on it's uppers. Hang on, Lance Armstrong wasn't racing in those years was he?0 -
sicrow wrote:The long and short of it is that Kimmage is vindictive and having read enough articles and books written by him it's obvious
Whether lance did or didn't is somewhat immaterial as Kimmage will try to make money for himself shouting his mouth off with his vindictive attitude all through next year
I don't buy this line. Surely Kimmage would have stood to make more money from his journalism by keeping his mouth shut? He'd have been a trusted ex-pro known for asking easy questions who could also string together some nice words. This would have meant that he didn't achieve a reputation for asking difficult questions and thus would have been granted more interviews (which is his stock in trade). His 'difficult' persona surely means that fewer people are willing to grant interviews with him because they'd be wary of his tendency to ask the kind of questions that he'll want to ask Armstrong.
Seems to me that Kimmage isn't an easy bloke to get along with. He's certainly driven, perhaps obsessive, about cheats which probably stems from his experience in the peloton, but it's not simply vindictiveness that drives him.0 -
leguape wrote:Croxted Avenger wrote:
Perhaps Sky invested because finally the sport looked a teeny bit clean again? Perhaps cycling on telly will equally get a ratings boost beause its attempted to get its house in order and it actually started to be A RACE instead of a freak show.Perhaps more people would ride their bikes (where did anyone say that was a bad thing???) because they were inspired by close racing and riders they could believe weren't juiced?
Perhaps you've been in a coma (albeit one where you leant to type in a patronising manner) but on my planet the sport has come as close as it dare to being rubbished out of exisitence by this keep the bucks flowing in and ignore the doping attitude typified by Verbruggen and contined by flapper McQuaid. If the sport isn't clean its not worth sh*t to anybody, firstly the public and secondly long term sponsors who will provide long term benefits. LA is not going to bring long term money to the sport and isn't going to inspire newbies like some lycra pied piper (explain why more people are cycling now then when he was at his zenith?). He will bring short term gain - mainly to him and his interests.
As for the tea I can't comment, I'm a coffee man.
Last point first: you are wrong. Look at Trek bike sales for the period 199-2005 and tell me that he didn't inspire people to take up cycling again. Look around any cycle club or forum and count the number of trek bikes or people who got back into cycling in some way connected to Armstrong's period in the sport.
Sky's reasoning for investing is that they saw that Team GB was likely to be hitting almighty pay dirt on the track and that cycling was about to get massive exposure on an unprecendented scale. It's a simple economic decision to expand their brand recognition and their profile as a socially responsible organisation.
In all other respects cycling figures had fallen once Armstrong retired from the sport - sponsorship, audience, revenue. It might have been "cleaning itself up" or however people want to put it but it was still in the dumper (and as Olly says its governance has not interest in it being truly clean) in every other aspect.
Road racing as a sport was on its ars* before Armstrong came back and the period of stability he offered (regardless of anything else) almost certainly stopped a lot more of the sport going to the wall.
If you're a team management team you don't go asking for one year's money, you go for multiples, so rates will go up next year with increased exposure. New sponsors will lock in for more money because they know it's better returns
Sponsors only stay long-term because it makes economic sense to or for reasons of specific national interest (Rabobank, Lotto). If you think they do it "for the good of the sport" or other sentimental reasons you a seriously overrating how they feel about the sport. T-Mobile were long term sponsors and sponsors of one the biggest dopers in the sport. The moment it burnt their brand they bailed faster than a novice bomber crew.
your planet must be a strange place if you missed those periods (1997-99 and 2006-07) when the sport was really on it's uppers. Hang on, Lance Armstrong wasn't racing in those years was he?
Firstly you cite the sales of Trek as proof of a resurgence in cycling - thats weak at best. The rise in all forms of cyling is attibutable to all things from the London congestion charge, the rising cost of fuel, the rise of triathlon...oh no wait sorry it was all Lance Armstrong wasn't it!
We see things fundamantally differently. If you see 1999-2005 as some sort of golden age for cycle sport - principally it seems due to the increased exposure of the sport in the English speaking world because of LA. To me thats a fatuous argument, I guess because the money was flowing and there were excellent marleting opportunities everything was just hunky dory, right? I mean who cares where the money comes from as long as it comes, right?
If you think that was a golden age you're tripping. How can you point the finger at 06 and 07 - when ok we were in the gutter but at least we were waking up - and miss 1990-2005 where the UCI stuck its head in the sand and let a dopers paradise take place with precious little scrutiny - all because they didn't want to upset the product by exposing the cheats. When will you realise that financial interests got us into this mess??? You've got to have a credible product before you have a product at all.
Armstrongs 09 campaign is a one way trade and he's the winner.
Cav, Hoy, Cooke and Pendleton are going to shift more bikes this year and next than Armstrong did in his entire career.\'You Come At the King,You Best Not Miss\'0 -
dennisn wrote:Garry H wrote:dennisn wrote:Garry H wrote:BenBlyth wrote::?
Glad you know all about these riders. What pro team did you say you rode with that
gave you axcess to all this doping infomation? i don't recall seeing you name on the "tour"
start list last year. Injuries or what? Too bad. Hope to see you on the podium in 2009.
By the way, do the words "one big load...." ring a bell? Oh, and by the way, I'm glad you told me that Lemond was not a doper. Glad to hear that he's a personal friend of your's and told you personally thast he never "doped". I wouldn't have believed it from anyone but you.
Dennis Nowrad
You don't seem to understand the point of discussion do you? Since when do you have to personally know someone to hold on opinion on them? Likewise, since when do you need to be a professional sports player in order to hold an opinion on that sport? I'm assuming your a child or a teenager, so will give you the benefit of the doubt!!0 -
Croxted Avenger wrote:Firstly you cite the sales of Trek as proof of a resurgence in cycling - thats weak at best. The rise in all forms of cyling is attibutable to all things from the London congestion charge, the rising cost of fuel, the rise of triathlon...oh no wait sorry it was all Lance Armstrong wasn't it!
We see things fundamantally differently. If you see 1999-2005 as some sort of golden age for cycle sport - principally it seems due to the increased exposure of the sport in the English speaking world because of LA. To me thats a fatuous argument, I guess because the money was flowing and there were excellent marleting opportunities everything was just hunky dory, right? I mean who cares where the money comes from as long as it comes, right?
If you think that was a golden age you're tripping. How can you point the finger at 06 and 07 - when ok we were in the gutter but at least we were waking up - and miss 1990-2005 where the UCI stuck its head in the sand and let a dopers paradise take place with precious little scrutiny - all because they didn't want to upset the product by exposing the cheats. When will you realise that financial interests got us into this mess??? You've got to have a credible product before you have a product at all.
Armstrongs 09 campaign is a one way trade and he's the winner.
Cav, Hoy, Cooke and Pendleton are going to shift more bikes this year and next than Armstrong did in his entire career.
What is weak about global bike sales increasing? I don't remember the US market or countless others where sales increased having to deal with the London congestion charge, triathlon or any of the other spurious and parochial reasons you give. The two main contributing factors to increased bike sales in that period are 1. rise of cheap far east economy scaled to mass-production driving down unit cost 2. global profile of cycling rising through Lance Armstrong.
Note that word: Global. The day Nike build entire sub-brands round any of the British cyclists, then you can claim they've had the same impact. Until then Cav's a rising star who'll be riding much the same bike as Riccardo Ricco was and Chris Hoy's an Olympian who's a bit popular in Bolivia in any marketeer's book.
I don't see the Armstrong era as some sort of golden age, I see it for what it was: the most lucrative period in the sport's history during which it bucked the trend of falling audience share and spectatorship. Riders still got caught throughout that time for doping, high profile ones even died, it's not like Armstrong held a needle to any of them and made them dope. Heck then let's damn the bloke for having the temerity to be successful and make a more than comfortable living. Blame the entire downfall of the sport on one rider and ignore everything else that went on around him.
Actually there's one you never hear mentioned when people talk about the Armstrong era: Riders saw money coming into the sport and decided they'd like to have some of it after all. They lobbied and got a minimum wage. Imagine that, professional riders being paid in more than primes and prize money after all of a hundred years of racing.
You also carefully miss my point that the problem existed before and after Armstrong and they still did nothing, so I didn't miss 1990-2005. Incidentally, the first cyclist who tested positive for EPO was in 1988.
In my view the only people who see his return to the sport as a bad thing have some entirely fantastic vision of a time when cycling wasn't regarded as dirty which never existed. And those whose own self-interest insists that they need to perpetuate this black and white division between old and new.
Every year they say the sport is getting cleaner and point to this that and the other, yet this year's was only 1km or so slower on average speed than 2005. Did I miss the bit where suddenly we had a year zero and everyone who doped packed up? It didn't happen. There is no such thing as a "credible product" in cycling, there never was.
He's said he's happy to play by the rules as they stand and unless I missed a UCI memo there's no reason for him to beat himself up over something he can do nothing about. Armstrong's return to the sport is exactly what it needs now: name and profile that punts it up every part of the public consciousness and allows it to very publicly proclaim that it has cleaned up.
Stop dreaming that it is a bad thing, start preparing to welcome the newbies to your clubs next year. That and being called lance by every prodder in a white van.0 -
leguape wrote:Croxted Avenger wrote:Firstly you cite the sales of Trek as proof of a resurgence in cycling - thats weak at best. The rise in all forms of cyling is attibutable to all things from the London congestion charge, the rising cost of fuel, the rise of triathlon...oh no wait sorry it was all Lance Armstrong wasn't it!
We see things fundamantally differently. If you see 1999-2005 as some sort of golden age for cycle sport - principally it seems due to the increased exposure of the sport in the English speaking world because of LA. To me thats a fatuous argument, I guess because the money was flowing and there were excellent marleting opportunities everything was just hunky dory, right? I mean who cares where the money comes from as long as it comes, right?
If you think that was a golden age you're tripping. How can you point the finger at 06 and 07 - when ok we were in the gutter but at least we were waking up - and miss 1990-2005 where the UCI stuck its head in the sand and let a dopers paradise take place with precious little scrutiny - all because they didn't want to upset the product by exposing the cheats. When will you realise that financial interests got us into this mess??? You've got to have a credible product before you have a product at all.
Armstrongs 09 campaign is a one way trade and he's the winner.
Cav, Hoy, Cooke and Pendleton are going to shift more bikes this year and next than Armstrong did in his entire career.
What is weak about global bike sales increasing? I don't remember the US market or countless others where sales increased having to deal with the London congestion charge, triathlon or any of the other spurious and parochial reasons you give. The two main contributing factors to increased bike sales in that period are 1. rise of cheap far east economy scaled to mass-production driving down unit cost 2. global profile of cycling rising through Lance Armstrong.
Note that word: Global. The day Nike build entire sub-brands round any of the British cyclists, then you can claim they've had the same impact. Until then Cav's a rising star who'll be riding much the same bike as Riccardo Ricco was and Chris Hoy's an Olympian who's a bit popular in Bolivia in any marketeer's book.
I don't see the Armstrong era as some sort of golden age, I see it for what it was: the most lucrative period in the sport's history during which it bucked the trend of falling audience share and spectatorship. Riders still got caught throughout that time for doping, high profile ones even died, it's not like Armstrong held a needle to any of them and made them dope. Heck then let's damn the bloke for having the temerity to be successful and make a more than comfortable living. Blame the entire downfall of the sport on one rider and ignore everything else that went on around him.
Actually there's one you never hear mentioned when people talk about the Armstrong era: Riders saw money coming into the sport and decided they'd like to have some of it after all. They lobbied and got a minimum wage. Imagine that, professional riders being paid in more than primes and prize money after all of a hundred years of racing.
You also carefully miss my point that the problem existed before and after Armstrong and they still did nothing, so I didn't miss 1990-2005. Incidentally, the first cyclist who tested positive for EPO was in 1988.
In my view the only people who see his return to the sport as a bad thing have some entirely fantastic vision of a time when cycling wasn't regarded as dirty which never existed. And those whose own self-interest insists that they need to perpetuate this black and white division between old and new.
Every year they say the sport is getting cleaner and point to this that and the other, yet this year's was only 1km or so slower on average speed than 2005. Did I miss the bit where suddenly we had a year zero and everyone who doped packed up? It didn't happen. There is no such thing as a "credible product" in cycling, there never was.
He's said he's happy to play by the rules as they stand and unless I missed a UCI memo there's no reason for him to beat himself up over something he can do nothing about. Armstrong's return to the sport is exactly what it needs now: name and profile that punts it up every part of the public consciousness and allows it to very publicly proclaim that it has cleaned up.
Stop dreaming that it is a bad thing, start preparing to welcome the newbies to your clubs next year. That and being called lance by every prodder in a white van.
In order, and for brevity:-
LCC, triathlon, fuel costs rising - these are tangibles mate. Whats your evidence? That there are more folk on Treks than any other bike up the cafe of a Sunday so it must be Lance Jesus Armstrong who's reposnbile? Like I say, weak. How about something to back up this massive assumption of yours?
Cav and Hoy - nicely dismissive from you. How about giving them a chance 1st? and btw who gives a fook about Nike and their sub brands anyway? If its a bike and people ride it who cares?
Nobodys blaming the downfall of cycling on one man.But he does represent the rotten black heart of the old ways, like it or not. We need to move on. If you don't believe cycling can be a credible product then you need to move on too, the old cynicism needs to die.
And it was GREG LEMOND who was instrumental in establishing professional wages in the pro peloton, not Lance flippin Armstrong.\'You Come At the King,You Best Not Miss\'0 -
I was buying your post leguape, or at least it was making me think, until your entirely fantastic assertion that 'Armstrong's return to the sport is exactly what it needs now: name and profile that punts it up every part of the public consciousness and allows it to very publicly proclaim that it has cleaned up.'
I'm having great difficulty in making the gigantic leap of faith between the Lance Armstrong of 1999-2005 and the mountain of evidence that undermines his credibility and this astonishing statement of yours. Since I could at least detect a logic and rationale behind the rest of your post, could you please somehow explain this statement to me before I complete trash my keyboard by snorting any more coffee into it in a laughing oh so derisively kind of way?
Croxted Avenger, the above is not the first well argued post about the possibility that the Armstrong effect does little more than boost the profile and line the pockets of Lance Armstrong that you have posted - thank you for saying what needs to be said.[/b]0 -
Garry H wrote:dennisn wrote:Garry H wrote:dennisn wrote:Garry H wrote:BenBlyth wrote::?
Glad you know all about these riders. What pro team did you say you rode with that
gave you axcess to all this doping infomation? i don't recall seeing you name on the "tour"
start list last year. Injuries or what? Too bad. Hope to see you on the podium in 2009.
By the way, do the words "one big load...." ring a bell? Oh, and by the way, I'm glad you told me that Lemond was not a doper. Glad to hear that he's a personal friend of your's and told you personally thast he never "doped". I wouldn't have believed it from anyone but you.
Dennis Nowrad
You don't seem to understand the point of discussion do you? Since when do you have to personally know someone to hold on opinion on them? Likewise, since when do you need to be a professional sports player in order to hold an opinion on that sport? I'm assuming your a child or a teenager, so will give you the benefit of the doubt!!
This thread never was a "discussion". Just a slam of this or that rider for unproven
"stories" written by people whose main motive is money. Just to let you know, a dull, boring Lance won't sell book or newspaper ONE. Now, a Lance(or whomever) on so many drugs that he's lucky to be alive, well, you guys seem to eat up that kind of stuff.
So the bad stuff gets written and If it gets said enough, then it must be true. Agree??
I truthfully don't give a damn what your opinion is. What I really don't like is people who
have never pedaled a mile in Lances, or anyone else's shoes, claiming to know anything
about their personal habits, drug use(if any), or their love life for that matter. Discussion
my *ss. Without a "dirty" Lance you guys wouldn't know what to talk about.
Dennis Noward0 -
Croxted Avenger wrote:That there are more folk on Treks than any other bike up the cafe of a Sunday so it must be Lance Jesus Armstrong who's reposnbile? Like I say, weak. How about something to back up this massive assumption of yours?
Indeed it is a massive assumption. Personally I see the biggest and best reason to buy Trek as the lifetime guarantee on the frame.Take care,
Steve.0 -
leguape wrote:
Every year they say the sport is getting cleaner and point to this that and the other, yet this year's was only 1km or so slower on average speed than 2005. Did I miss the bit where suddenly we had a year zero and everyone who doped packed up? It didn't happen. There is no such thing as a "credible product" in cycling, there never was.
.
Any idea what reduction in power 1km /h implies? Or how close you'd be to the podium going 1km/h slower. On second thoughts Tours are impossible to compare on speed along ... the conditions are different.0 -
anyone who says triathlon is not a major factor in increasing bike sales is just talking out their ring.0
-
It's funny, you often here references by pro riders stating the few pros that we're actually 'clean'. i don't think i have ever seen, read, or heard out and out confirmation concerning Lance being clean (by his peers etc). I'm a massive Pantani fan, but it was obvious to me he was well charged. Lance, no doubt along with his well selected henchmen was and still is one of the biggest frauds in modern sport. History proves time and time again that justice is defined by wealth and power. If lance turns up in the UK i certainly would not encourage my children to support such a 'product' from the side of the road.
Fair play to Kimmage, lemond etc for their deeply moral stance!!0 -
How could he ever be considered the greatest cyclist who ever rode a bike,Have you ever heard of EDDY MERCKX. If Armstrong was clean his record compared to Merckx is a joke. Oh, and Merckx rode the full season not just when he felt like it. Greetings AdemortSteve Tcp wrote:dennisn wrote:Without a "dirty" Lance you guys wouldn't know what to talk about.
Dennis Noward
If Lance wasn't in any way "dirty" we'd probably still be talking about him today, but possibly as the greatest cyclist who ever rode a bike.ademort
Chinarello, record and Mavic Cosmic Sl
Gazelle Vuelta , veloce
Giant Defy 4
Mirage Columbus SL
Batavus Ventura0 -
Steve Tcp wrote:dennisn wrote:Without a "dirty" Lance you guys wouldn't know what to talk about.
Dennis Noward
If Lance wasn't in any way "dirty" we'd probably still be talking about him today, but possibly as the greatest cyclist who ever rode a bike.
I'll buy that. Although I still think a "dirty" Lance sells the printed word much better.
Dennis Noward0 -
Croxted Avenger wrote:
In order, and for brevity:-
LCC, triathlon, fuel costs rising - these are tangibles mate. Whats your evidence? That there are more folk on Treks than any other bike up the cafe of a Sunday so it must be Lance Jesus Armstrong who's reposnbile? Like I say, weak. How about something to back up this massive assumption of yours?
Cav and Hoy - nicely dismissive from you. How about giving them a chance 1st? and btw who gives a fook about Nike and their sub brands anyway? If its a bike and people ride it who cares?
Nobodys blaming the downfall of cycling on one man.But he does represent the rotten black heart of the old ways, like it or not. We need to move on. If you don't believe cycling can be a credible product then you need to move on too, the old cynicism needs to die.
And it was GREG LEMOND who was instrumental in establishing professional wages in the pro peloton, not Lance flippin Armstrong.
And in order:
1. Oil prices were at a relative low from the mid-80s onwards, the only started to rise due to perceived threats to supply in around 2003-04: http://inflationdata.com/inflation/Infl ... _Table.asp You're banging on about London, I'm talking about a global picture. London is a bubble and entirely unrepresentative of the rest of the world.
“Trek doesn't reveal specific sales figures. But from June 1999 to
June 2000, road bike sales were up 40 percent from the year before,
said Nate Tobecksen, Trek spokesman. Total Trek sales, of all types of
bikes, were about $300 million in 1999.”
Source: Wisconsin State Journal (Madison), July 25, 2000
Tangibles you were saying?
2. Hoy was a gold medallist in 2004, so was Bradley Wiggins, neither is a poster boy for a multinational brand that is one of the two dominant sports clothing and attire brand worldwide.
3. Credible product when Bjarne Riis and Mauro Gianetti can still be a team owner, Vaughters still can't front up to doping and the likes of Richard Virenque still get regular punditry work? Incidentally, the minimum wage, who signed it on behalf of the riders and teams? It's a hoot that one.
The black heart of the dark days was the Italian federation doping its riders, the academics of Freiburg using Telekom as some sort of rolling physiology test.MICRON wrote:I was buying your post leguape, or at least it was making me think, until your entirely fantastic assertion that 'Armstrong's return to the sport is exactly what it needs now: name and profile that punts it up every part of the public consciousness and allows it to very publicly proclaim that it has cleaned up.'
You're confusing the issues. Armstrong 99-2005 is not the same one as Armstrong being able to get cycling mentioned in Vanity Fair and giving the sport a public platform that it wouldn't otherwise get. The hiring of Don Caitlin is sharp PR for Armstrong and the sport, whether you agree or not Caitlin is the right man. But in the mainstream, he's the guy who busted BALCO and the american icon Marion Jones, so hardly a soft touch. That says to people who don't lurk in the dark depths of cycling fora "clean sport" or at least "serious about being clean", It's pretty much without nuance.
Cycling can go on all it likes about how its been cleaning up but until a recognisable name like Armstrong puts down a marker saying "test me as much as you like" and is potentially competitive then it's still not a story people outside cycling are going to hear or listen to. His past also represents exactly why cycling needs him to do well and be seen to be clean.0 -
Well said.You don't seem to understand the point of discussion do you? Since when do you have to personally know someone to hold on opinion on them? Likewise, since when do you need to be a professional sports player in order to hold an opinion on that sport? I'm assuming your a child or a teenager, so will give you the benefit of the doubt!!
Dennis Noward hasn't seemed to be able to grasp the essence of this discussion at all LOL!
I, like you, think he's pretty immature.
Probably a teenager. 0
