Paul Kimmage rattles Laid back Lance!!
must have been a very funny moment....
Lance Armstrong faced a difficult moment in the Tour of California press conference Thursday in Sacramento, California. The seven-time Tour de France winner responded to Paul Kimmage's question about the return of "non-repentant" dopers.
"You've spoke recently about the return of Ivan Basso and Floyd Landis, who have returned after their suspensions, compared to David Millar – that they should be welcomed back like he was. But there was one obvious difference in that Millar admitted his doping whereas these guys have admitted to nothing. What is it about these guys that you seem to admire so much?" asked Kimmage, a reporter with the Sunday Times of London.
Seventeen riders were present to kick-off the stage race, February 14 to 22. Many of the media's questions were about Armstrong's cancer message or his views on racing in the Tour of California, but the most intense moment came with the second question, from Kimmage
Armstrong prefaced his answer with the following statement: "When I decided to come back, for what I think is a very noble reason, you said, 'The cancer has been in remission for four years, our cancer has now returned' – meaning me, that I am the cancer!
"So it goes without saying, no we are not going to sit down for an interview. You are not worth the chair you are sitting on with a statement like that, with a disease that touches everyone around the world."
Armstrong went on to answer Kimmage's question. "You have to consider what has happened to David [Millar], who I admire a lot [and] who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Is it heroic that he has now confessed? Some would say so. I applaud him that he is back and I hope that he is very successful."
"Floyd [Landis], on the other hand, there is a lot of evidence against him and there is a lot of evidence in his favour. Floyd does not believe he is guilty, so to appease people like you he can't confess."
Armstrong explained his admiration for his fellow cyclists as men and that all men make mistakes.
"I'm not sure I will ever forgive you for that statement. And I'm not sure that anybody around the world affected by this disease will forgive you."
Kimmage got Thursday's last word in what will be an ongoing battle.
"You don't have a patent on cancer. I'm interested in the cancer of doping in cycling. That has been my life's work! I raced as a professional and I exposed it. Then you come along and the problem disappears."
Kimmage, a former professional racer from the 1980s, reported extensively on drug use within cycling – including his award-winning book Rough Ride.
0
Comments
-
There's a video of it here:
http://www.steephill.tv/tour-of-california/
Love the bit when LA pretends he doesn't know what Kimmage looks like. AS. IF.0 -
"Excuse me whats your name again"
all quite calm too. 0 -
The first part of his answer very much sounded like one which he had been rehearsing in his head at night!
If this was football, Kimmage would have been celebrated as a "master of mind games".
Certainly did rattle the old fella didn't he?Note: the above post is an opinion and not fact. It might be a lie.0 -
Paul Kimmage is spot on, perfect question..I suspect he knew fine well what kimmage looked like...but wants us not think he has posters of journalists he hates pinned up in buses. Great to see him rattle LA's cage.0
-
I read Kimmages book recently with a totally open mind - although I looked forward to it greatly having been pointed in that direction by Tim Moore's French Rvolutions.
I found parts of it very interesting - it's clearly a maddeningly tough life they lead these cyclists! Ultimately, however, I thought he came across as a strange, angry and hugely contradictory figure. He writes about the way that races were fixed; is this not another form of cheating? Because it is accepted in the peleton he seems to go along with it yet he seems to be trying to elevate himself to great heights becasue he refused another form of cheating... mostly; he did dope after all. The passage where he is disgusted becasue an Irsih rider wasn't allowed to win in Ireland beggars belief. If you cheat (and I mean 'you' as in the whole group involved in the fixing) you can;t then complain if the result doesn't go your way. If you go along with the cheating that surely removes any right you have to question the result.
I just don't understand his anger at Armstrong either. As to his qustion here, which some of you seem to think was particularly clever, why does it matter to him so much what Armstrong thinks of people who have served a ban laid down by the governing body and returned to race? I think Kimmage is more wrapped up in Armstrong hype than anyone. Lance's opinion is just that, a personal opinion.
There must be better cyclist journalists out there worth giving airtime to - Matt Rendell for one.0 -
Imagine how he will react when he gets pushed on the Catlin joke.0
-
Paul Kimmage is a very bitter and twisted man and to make the statement he did about LA is quite possibly one the worst cases of journalism I have ever read. Regardless of what your opinion of LA is and also if you think he was clean or not to compare anybody no matter who he is to a disease that almost killed him is unforgivable in my eyes. In my opinion people like Kimmage need to get the hell out of cycling as they add nothing but their own lifes bitterness, jelousy, evny and frustration. The way to catch people who use performance enhancing drugs is throught the measures being implemented now not with petty publicity enhancing scwables(sic) substance and proof lacking books (Mr Walsh) and uncorobated conjecture and 'must be's' I think LA said it as it is and was quite restrained in his response coz if that was me I'm afraid the chair Mr Kimmage was sitting on might well have been wrapped round his head.'..all the bad cats in the bad hats..'0
-
carbonfiend wrote:Paul Kimmage is a very bitter and twisted man and to make the statement he did about LA is quite possibly one the worst cases of journalism I have ever read. Regardless of what your opinion of LA is and also if you think he was clean or not to compare anybody no matter who he is to a disease that almost killed him is unforgivable in my eyes. In my opinion people like Kimmage need to get the hell out of cycling as they add nothing but their own lifes bitterness, jelousy, evny and frustration. The way to catch people who use performance enhancing drugs is throught the measures being implemented now not with petty publicity enhancing scwables(sic) substance and proof lacking books (Mr Walsh) and uncorobated conjecture and 'must be's' I think LA said it as it is and was quite restrained in his response coz if that was me I'm afraid the chair Mr Kimmage was sitting on might well have been wrapped round his head.
Good point. there are anti-doping programmes in place to catch the cheats. If they were catching people before, during and after lance's first spell in cycling why can people not believe he rode clean?
As to 'what does he admire so much' in Landis, Millar and Basso - they're his mates aren't they? They're still his mates even if they've done wrong.
Kimmage's statment re Armstrong/cancer was unbelievable. how can anyone be so bitter and negative?!0 -
Paul Kimmage makes me ashamed to be Irish... who said that, internet forum people ?0
-
The cancer rhetoric is Armstrong's - does he have a copyright on the word? From his semi messianic rant about being here to save us all from cancer, perhaps he thinks so.
Kimmage asked a perfectly legitimate question based on statements that Armstrong has made - on record - supportive of doped riders. I rather wondered if the somewhat scripted 'cancer' response would have been trotted out at some point during the conference whether Kimmage had spoken or not?
It's quite clear that Armstrong is a man who isn't used to having his views challenged.0 -
micron writes...... "does he have a copyright on the word? From his semi messianic rant about being here to save us all from cancer, perhaps he thinks so."
And for this he should be sneered at? I imagine until you've suffered from it, you cannot understand what it does to you. I don't think he can save us from cancer, whether he belives it or not, but how can his attempts offend you so much?0 -
Paul Kimmage is a very bitter and twisted man and to make the statement he did about LA is quite possibly one the worst cases of journalism I have ever read
Then I have to say I admire him hugely for his "bitter and twisted" nature. Being willing to look the fool publicly and be shunned by many like you, takes huge courage, There are too few people like Kimmage in the world - I wish we had more. Modern society seems to be collapsing into an infantile and superficial mask of "positivity". There is now no greater sin than being "judgemental". I'm old fashioned in that way, like Kimmage, I believe in honesty and sincerity - strange outmoded concepts like right, wrong and sporting fair-play. In my view Armstrong has neither honesty nor sincerity and in fact it is really he who is "bitter and twisted".
My father has cancer and may soon die from it. May I speak for the cancer-community worldwide in saying that I'm happy to see Lance Armstrong compared to cancer! I think its a brilliant analogy and a sign of Kimmage's erudition that he is able to turn the LA myth against the man himself!0 -
sylvanus wrote:Paul Kimmage is a very bitter and twisted man and to make the statement he did about LA is quite possibly one the worst cases of journalism I have ever read
Then I have to say I admire him hugely for his "bitter and twisted" nature. Being willing to look the fool publicly and be shunned by many like you, takes huge courage, There are two few people like Kimmage in the world - I wish we had more. Modern society seems to be collapsing into an infantile and superficial mask of "positivity". There is now no greater sin than being "judgemental". I'm old fashioned in that way, like Kimmage, I believe in honesty and sincerity - strange outmoded concepts like right, wrong and sporting fair-play. In my view Armstrong has neither honesty nor sincerity and in fact it is really he who is "bitter and twisted".
My father has cancer and may soon die from it. May I speak for the cancer-community worldwide in saying that I'm happy to see Lance Armstrong compared to cancer! I think its a brilliant analogy and a sign of Kimmage's erudition that he is able to turn the LA myth against the man himself!
No you may not speak for the cancer community worldwide. you can speak for yourself and not place me under your umbrella of paranoia re the Armstrong 'myth'
Very best wishes for your Father.0 -
adeyboy, carbonfiend
Get over yourselves. Kimmage made tough comments about Armstrong's return, but using the cancer label to rebuff everything laid at him is a smokescreen to take the heat out of the real questions. Armstrong does not have a monopoly on cancer. I've had cancer. Lots of other people have had cancer. Armstrong's was an extreme case and is a great story, and we're all very pleased he was able to overcome. But do you know what, we all got over it. Whoopeedoo. What I'm bothered about in sport is not cancer, it's cycling. That's what I want to watch, and the presence of the unrepetant old guard such as LA - 'I've never tested positive' - Landis and Basso doesn't fill me with enthusiasm. The question about Landis and Basso is a very good one for Kimmage to ask. Frankly, I applaud him for still having the guts to take on the Armstrong machine.0 -
In a way, I admire his asking that question, because it was so patently stupid. If you stop and think about it for a second, what was he actually asking and what was he hoping to achieve? It's like the politics of the playground - I'll ask you the most awkward question I can think of even if the answer is clearly going to be meaningless. 'what do you admire about them'? Come on!
As I said, there MUST be better cycling journalists than him. He's like the worst kind of comedian/DJ/whatever just using shock tactics.0 -
Taking a wider perspective for a moment I wonder if Lance is really back for either sporting or altuistic reasons alone.
A lot of people have seen their investments evaporate in the financial crisis of the past year -- why should the Livestrong Foundation or its backers be any different? Maybe their money too was tied up in toxic assets or in Iceland or with Bernie Madoff or some other, yet to be exposed dodgy investment fund. Maybe, like a lot of our banks, they are having to recapitalize with new cash before their real position is exposed for all the world to see.0 -
Millar sits on the fence too much...backs lance IMO...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/fe ... ar-cycling0 -
Dave_1 wrote:Millar sits on the fence too much...backs lance IMO...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/fe ... ar-cycling
Interesting to see how Lance responds to this - I don't think he likes beng criticised by his pals/peers does he?0 -
sylvanus wrote:Then I have to say I admire him hugely for his "bitter and twisted" nature. Being willing to look the fool publicly and be shunned by many like you, takes huge courage, There are too few people like Kimmage in the world - I wish we had more. Modern society seems to be collapsing into an infantile and superficial mask of "positivity".
Great point. And Armstrong used that positivity argument in his rant in Procycling
I disagree with Kimmage on some points but he's a close second to me in the asking good questions stakes
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Kimmage has asked no questions about Armstrongs return,the question was why he supported two people who had served a punishment for a crime. Lets have a good look at Mr Kimmage who might I add also admitted to using performance enhancing drugs himself. Why does he think he is the saviour of cycling because he wrote a book 'exposing' drugs and cycling from which I might add he has carved a nice carear from and no doubt profited from its many reprints. What has he actually done that has helped prevent or combat drug enhanced cycling - I say nothing and if we follow his train of thought on this issue then anybody including those convinced by a higher court than the UCI or WADA who support those convicted of a crime regardless of if they admit guilt should be forever tarred and feathered. How many times have we heard of those who denied their guilt even when convicted then had their innonence shown to be true - Diane Modall/ Birmingham 6 etc etc. Lastly why the hell shouldn't LA return or offer support for those who are given a second chance this just again just highlights Kimmage's resentments.
Yeah by all means take on the Armstrong machine but you do this will coroborated and well researched proof not crass lowlife publicity seaking headlines and comments'..all the bad cats in the bad hats..'0 -
Really can't figure this Lance obsession thing out. Are you all-
Trying to prove to yourselves and / or others that he is NOT a god?
If so, why?
Trying to prove that he is, in fact, an evil demon?
What will you do if you discover that he is a demon?
and-
How is it that rational humans(I use that term loosely) can become so obsessed
with a person that they shadow his/her every move and utterance?
What drives a person to be like this? Envy? Jealousy? Hatred?
Are you trying to prove that YOU can beat the "gods"?
Do you feel that you are better(superior) than these people that you put down daily?
Is it working for you? Does it make you feel better to put down "famous" people?
Do you have low self esteem?
Are you mad because you're not capable of doing what Lance and the pros do?
All of the above?
All good questions.
Dennis Noward0 -
just watched the video. have say LA didnt look in the least bit rattled, quite the contrary. i think PK asked a completely irrelevant question which was dismissed with the contempt it deserved. if there was anyone looking like a pr1ck it was kimmage.0
-
dennisn wrote:Really can't figure this Lance obsession thing out. Are you all-
Trying to prove to yourselves and / or others that he is NOT a god?
If so, why?
Trying to prove that he is, in fact, an evil demon?
What will you do if you discover that he is a demon?
and-
How is it that rational humans(I use that term loosely) can become so obsessed
with a person that they shadow his/her every move and utterance?
What drives a person to be like this? Envy? Jealousy? Hatred?
Are you trying to prove that YOU can beat the "gods"?
Do you feel that you are better(superior) than these people that you put down daily?
Is it working for you? Does it make you feel better to put down "famous" people?
Do you have low self esteem?
Are you mad because you're not capable of doing what Lance and the pros do?
All of the above?
All good questions.
Dennis Noward
Get off that fence Dave 1 is talking about, Dennis.
Wrong thread.
You are clearly obssessed with Armstrong and this one is about Paul Kimmage and his utterances. "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
adeyboy wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Millar sits on the fence too much...backs lance IMO...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/fe ... ar-cycling
Interesting to see how Lance responds to this - I don't think he likes beng criticised by his pals/peers does he?
i think you'll find thats Ex-pals/peers0 -
camerone wrote:just watched the video. have say LA didnt look in the least bit rattled, quite the contrary. i think PK asked a completely irrelevant question which was dismissed with the contempt it deserved. if there was anyone looking like a pr1ck it was kimmage.
As long as individuals who follow the sport, make observations such as this, then attack those who have the guts to put awkward questions to an intimidating person, in a hostile environment, we will continue to get the sport we deserve.
One full of hypocrisy, duplicity and dope fuelled cheating.camerone wrote:i think you'll find thats Ex-pals/peers
Then watch the video again and listen to his comments on Millar."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Sylvanus & Scammers I really couldn't agree more. The assumption that Armstrong speaks for everyone in the cancer community, that his is the only way to survive, that you have to 'fight' cancer and if you succumb then you obviously weren't trying hard enough - that rhetoric is distasteful and damaging.
Whatever happened to the new ever so 'umble Lance who would answer any question, just pick up the telephone, bring it on (because there was never a blacklist, ever)? Plus ca change, as ever. Which rather begs the question as to what he won't lie about as opposed to what he is truthful about.
As for the Kimmage reply - pure politico speak - Governor of Texas is quite clearly his next port of call0 -
adeyboy wrote:Dave_1 wrote:Millar sits on the fence too much...backs lance IMO...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/fe ... ar-cycling
Interesting to see how Lance responds to this - I don't think he likes beng criticised by his pals/peers does he?
Do you?
Dennis Noward0 -
Blazing Saddles wrote:camerone wrote:just watched the video. have say LA didnt look in the least bit rattled, quite the contrary. i think PK asked a completely irrelevant question which was dismissed with the contempt it deserved. if there was anyone looking like a pr1ck it was kimmage.
As long as individuals who follow the sport, make observations such as this, then attack those who have the guts to put awkward questions to an intimidating person, in a hostile environment, we will continue to get the sport we deserve.
One full of hypocrisy, duplicity and dope fuelled cheating.
i dont recall attacking him, just pointed out it was an irrelevant question and it was him that looked the pr1ck. i think i am allowed to put an opinion forth that is different to yours? other posts commented on how rattled LA looked, I disagree and i think I am entitled to that.
I have no issues with awkward questions when relevant, and iain was right his question was much better than PK's. Kimmage was just trying to give it the arent I the tough guy, it will never get anything other than a politicial style response and is hence a wasted question.0 -
Doobz wrote:must have been a very funny moment....Lance Armstrong faced a difficult moment in the Tour of California press conference Thursday in Sacramento, California. The seven-time Tour de France winner responded to Paul Kimmage's question about the return of "non-repentant" dopers.
"You've spoke recently about the return of Ivan Basso and Floyd Landis, who have returned after their suspensions, compared to David Millar – that they should be welcomed back like he was. But there was one obvious difference in that Millar admitted his doping whereas these guys have admitted to nothing. What is it about these guys that you seem to admire so much?" asked Kimmage, a reporter with the Sunday Times of London.
Seventeen riders were present to kick-off the stage race, February 14 to 22. Many of the media's questions were about Armstrong's cancer message or his views on racing in the Tour of California, but the most intense moment came with the second question, from Kimmage
Armstrong prefaced his answer with the following statement: "When I decided to come back, for what I think is a very noble reason, you said, 'The cancer has been in remission for four years, our cancer has now returned' – meaning me, that I am the cancer!
"So it goes without saying, no we are not going to sit down for an interview. You are not worth the chair you are sitting on with a statement like that, with a disease that touches everyone around the world."
Armstrong went on to answer Kimmage's question. "You have to consider what has happened to David [Millar], who I admire a lot [and] who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Is it heroic that he has now confessed? Some would say so. I applaud him that he is back and I hope that he is very successful."
"Floyd [Landis], on the other hand, there is a lot of evidence against him and there is a lot of evidence in his favour. Floyd does not believe he is guilty, so to appease people like you he can't confess."
Armstrong explained his admiration for his fellow cyclists as men and that all men make mistakes.
"I'm not sure I will ever forgive you for that statement. And I'm not sure that anybody around the world affected by this disease will forgive you."
Kimmage got Thursday's last word in what will be an ongoing battle.
"You don't have a patent on cancer. I'm interested in the cancer of doping in cycling. That has been my life's work! I raced as a professional and I exposed it. Then you come along and the problem disappears."
Kimmage, a former professional racer from the 1980s, reported extensively on drug use within cycling – including his award-winning book Rough Ride.
I presume you were being sarcastic with that comment. To me that seems a pointless and very childish dig at Armstrong which has backfired by Lance's quite reasonable response. I would actually go as far as to say it is highly offensive and proves Kimmage simple has some personal vendetta.
I am not biased as I actually disagree with Lance supporting Landis etc however holding this up as Lance being rattled is nothing short of embarassing. If the roles were reversed you would be claiming Kimmage had still got one over on Lance. He just can't win.
Why do we have to have these threads trying to slate lance following everything he has said? I have not seen one about Landis or Basso, they are proven cheats. It is so boring after a while.0
