Paul Kimmage rattles Laid back Lance!!

don key

colint wrote:

And lets remember Millar confessed in a police station after being hauled there by armed police, hardly an attack of conscience

It was, they attacked his conscience with cuffs( to long, turned down) heavy questioning(where did you get rugs in you living room) and good old fashioned french charm.
The French are wonderful people in novels , tv(Cluedo) and even in song(Je them).
The reality of a police station is slightly different.

Allo Allo would, I think, be a fine example of the kind of pressure he was put under, imagine for a moment being ignored while your interrogators learn rudimentary Anglais via a cheap sitcom with as it happens a Lance type hero encrusted with bird twit from lying in the shady part of the village square.

It is important to know the back ground of the case and not let this argument degenerate into farce, thanks for lessoning to learn.

NaB

don key wrote:

colint wrote:

And lets remember Millar confessed in a police station after being hauled there by armed police, hardly an attack of conscience

It was, they attacked his conscience with cuffs( to long, turned down) heavy questioning(where did you get rugs in you living room) and good old fashioned french charm.
The French are wonderful people in novels , tv(Cluedo) and even in song(Je them).
The reality of a police station is slightly different.

Allo Allo would, I think, be a fine example of the kind of pressure he was put under, imagine for a moment being ignored while your interrogators learn rudimentary Anglais via a cheap sitcom with as it happens a Lance type hero encrusted with bird twit from lying in the shady part of the village square.

It is important to know the back ground of the case and not let this argument degenerate into farce, thanks for lessoning to learn.

Don Key you do have a knack for malapropism...chapeau!

micron

Just a question - there's a lot of outrage about Kimmage comparing Armstrong to 'cancer'. Why exactly is that so disgraceful? Is that disease so stigmatised that any association with it makes the sufferer a leper?

Because if the C word remains so pejorative and stigmatised, why reinforce that by saying that the use of it is 'unforgiveable'? That stigmatisation needs addressing, not reiterating through scripted over reaction.

moray_gub

micron wrote:

Just a question - there's a lot of outrage about Kimmage comparing Armstrong to 'cancer'. Why exactly is that so disgraceful? Is that disease so stigmatised that any association with it makes the sufferer a leper?

.

I am surprised you asked that question to be honest (on second thoughts maybe i am not) Well for me to say that to anybody who has suffered from cancer is quire frankly a disgrace and if PK said it in print even more so. The fact its Lance doesnt matter here it was just a pure nasty comment to make to a cancer sufferer.

MG

micron

Why? Because cancer is a plague, a blight and all who suffer are touched by that blight? That's hardly an enlightened view is it? And that's my point - that's not raising awareness, it's going back to a dark ages view of a disease.

I'm reminded of a Derek and Clive sketch called 'cancer' - that did more to raise awareness of the myths and stigma around the disease than any amount of carefully scripted 'outrage' ever could.

moray_gub

micron wrote:

Why? Because cancer is a plague, a blight and all who suffer are touched by that blight? That's hardly an enlightened view is it? And that's my point - that's not raising awareness, it's going back to a dark ages view of a disease.

I'm reminded of a Derek and Clive sketch called 'cancer' - that did more to raise awareness of the myths and stigma around the disease than any amount of carefully scripted 'outrage' ever could.

Trying to get a fix on your mindset here does this just go for Cancer sufferers or is it ok to say that kind of thing to sufferers of other diseases ? say if i said to someone who suffered from Aids thatd be ok in your eyes ?

MG

fast as fupp

that would depend on whether it was 'good aids' or 'the bad aids' :twisted:

Rhods

To call something a cancer is not something which should cause outrage per se.

I think you must look at who the words are describing. No, not Lance Armstrong, but a person who has suffered from cancer. That's what makes it bad in my opinion. Totally insensitive, regardless of one's opinion as LA.

dave_1

Kimmage is good for the sport...too many Liggets and Sherwins out there and we saw in 98 and 06 what the true commentary should have been.

moray_gub

Rhods wrote:

To call something a cancer is not something which should cause outrage per se.

I think you must look at who the words are describing. No, not Lance Armstrong, but a person who has suffered from cancer. That's what makes it bad in my opinion. Totally insensitive, regardless of one's opinion as LA.

+1

MG

Moomaloid

I'm happy there are people like Kimmage out there asking difficult questions. i think his choice of words was very poor, as he may even now, but at the same time he asked a reasonable question. Apart from the first half of the answer Armstrong actually gave a reasonable response.

Anyways, here's a thought... whats the chance of us all just watching what happens for the next few months, maybe taking breather from this never-ending merry-go-round. Afterall, we only ever talk about the same issues, nobody on here is ever gonna change their minds. At least not for now. lets just see what happens...

I'm on the the side of the questioners, but at the same time, right now, i'm much more interested in seeing how he's gonna ride this season, is he gonna jack half way through...

ROLL ON PARIS-NICE i wanna talk cycle racing for a change!

sylvanus

Because cancer is a plague, a blight and all who suffer are touched by that blight? That's hardly an enlightened view is it? And that's my point - that's not raising awareness, it's going back to a dark ages view of a disease.

I'm a bit lost by this - surely cancer is a "plague / blight" like any serious disease? I'm sure my father who is suffering from it would agree with the description. I'm a bit of a loss as to why that is "unenlightened" which is presumably some sort of politically correct expression of disapproval?

I love Kimmage's description, since to compare Armstrong with a tumour in the body of cycling, which we hoped had been removed / shrunk but has now returned and is in danger of spreading to other organs is a wonderfully accurate metaphor, if Kimmage's suspicion's are correct (which most of us believe them to be).

Its also a head-on attack on Armstrong's pontificating saintliness about a disease which he uses very much for his own celeb image purposes. Sport does serve a 'normative' purpose for health and happiness and it is important that our sporting heroes are to some extent real, not cynically abusive fakes.

I'd be very unhappy if cycling continued to ape a WWF / NFL entertainment for idiots approach. Reality may be less gripping or even more complex but I'd like to see real sport not a Hello-magasine version cranked out for the mentally sub-normal. If that means the TdF no longer rolls along at 42kph and Nike have no interest in it then great!

Kimmage is much more of a hero to me, and a much greater and braver man, than Lance.

micron

I agree with your broader points Sylvanus - and I absolutely agree that the way to raise awareness of cancer (whatever that actually means) is not to hijack a sport.

colint

I just don't understand how Kimmage can be described as brave. Whats he done that's brave He had nothing to lose when he wrote his book, he was a finished ex pro and doper with nowhere to go career wise. You may think he does a good job, but for gods sake he can't be described as brave.

NaB

sylvanus wrote:

Because cancer is a plague, a blight and all who suffer are touched by that blight? That's hardly an enlightened view is it? And that's my point - that's not raising awareness, it's going back to a dark ages view of a disease.

I'm a bit lost by this - surely cancer is a "plague / blight" like any serious disease? I'm sure my father who is suffering from it would agree with the description. I'm a bit of a loss as to why that is "unenlightened" which is presumably some sort of politically correct expression of disapproval?

I love Kimmage's description, since to compare Armstrong with a tumour in the body of cycling, which we hoped had been removed / shrunk but has now returned and is in danger of spreading to other organs is a wonderfully accurate metaphor, if Kimmage's suspicion's are correct (which most of us believe them to be).

Its also a head-on attack on Armstrong's pontificating saintliness about a disease which he uses very much for his own celeb image purposes. Sport does serve a 'normative' purpose for health and happiness and it is important that our sporting heroes are to some extent real, not cynically abusive fakes.

I'd be very unhappy if cycling continued to ape a WWF / NFL entertainment for idiots approach. Reality may be less gripping or even more complex but I'd like to see real sport not a Hello-magasine version cranked out for the mentally sub-normal. If that means the TdF no longer rolls along at 42kph and Nike have no interest in it then great!

Kimmage is much more of a hero to me, and a much greater and braver man, than Lance.

Hear hear Kimmage is a hero no more fake sporting spectacles please - until that happens I'll never believe any of the 'performmances' at the tour

Ciaran Hampson

I have read with interest the various posts about the press conference and with the views of the other forum members as to doping, Lance, cancer, Paul Kimmage etc.

I posted my views earlier in this forum about Paul Kimmage and I stand by they he was a good amateur who never made it in the Pro ranks.

Lance despite what people think of him as a person has been good for cycling he has raised the profile, I know i will have a retort of comments to that remark but he has just look at the press conference in Tenerife, his comeback made national news so he does bring other watchers to our sport.

As for doping, well when money becomes involved in anything people are looking for whatever edge they can, do all the forum members believe cycling is the only sport with a drug problem, do you not think , football, rugby and boxing to name but a few have drugs in them? Cycling has one of the toughest testing programs in professional sports. Yes i agree it needs to be improved and the cheats need to be caught out but the sport is being killed by a small number of riders who are willing to take chances.

The interesting thing about LAnce is why has he not been caught, there have been others since his retirement such as Heras to name one who if he knew anything could have offered evidence against Lance to mitigate his own position, he did not why? Maybe because he has nothing on him, maybe because he is clean?

I saw reference to MArk Cavendish in some of the postings, does everyone think he is on something if not why not and why would Lance be?

Tom simpson is hailed by the British cycling fans as a hero, yet he died essentially as a result of doping, doping has been a problem in the sport for years, the authorities need to improve the testing but Paul Kimmage is not the person to assist he is just a bitter guy.

dave_1

here is Kimmage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Ai6t6R1_w

sicrow

Sorry if but i've not read past page 1 until now on page 8 so I guess it will be just my origional view that Kimmage is a w****er who is earning a living off inuendo.

whatever the view of LA - if he promotes anything that adds to just one person who gives to any cancer charity then he has succeded in doing good whatever his personal motives are ............. f*** Kimmage

don key

colint wrote:

I just don't understand how Kimmage can be described as brave. Whats he done that's brave He had nothing to lose when he wrote his book, he was a finished ex pro and doper with nowhere to go career wise. You may think he does a good job, but for gods sake he can't be described as brave.

For Gods sake I hope he/she/it doesn't exist.

You try standing up to get counted and find you are in a minority of one, if you then find that you are not brave it might be that you have either made a mistake or don't really believe in the argument you put forward in the first place. He does and he also has kind of Dublin trait that says he wont be done over and he certainly wont lie down, for any one. That is great fun as people who need to be in charge always think they can control the situation and people like Paul really mess their heads up. Those in charge are only in that position because we allow them to be, if we had many more Kimmage's the problem would be solved overnight , especially in terms of positive tests and the clear and fair operation of resulting sanctions, this is not now the case, that is the most obvious problem at the moment.

adeyboy

micron wrote:

I think what disturbs some people is the extraordinary unfairness/corruption/arbitrariness of the anti doping system that sees Armstrong walk away from a positive test for corticoids with a backdated TUE in 99 but sees Mayo pursued and crucified for an extremely dubious 'b' test. It seems that large 'donations' to the UCI can buy certain privileges.

You cite the Millar case, Arkibal, but, to quote the mantra, he never tested positive unlike, for example, Floyd Landis.

I appreciate your standpoint, but it seems that there is one standard of proof for Ricco, Pantani, Mayo et al and quite another for the sport's greatets cash cow.

The corticoids test was not in the positive range. End of. Red herring.

And once again, why, when people were caught before, during and after Lance's time winning le Tour is it impossible for some people to accept he was clean? by which I mean, the anti-doping tests were clearly working... even if a bit slowly.[/quote]

Just hoping someone (micron) can come back at me on this - I genuinely don't understand the anti lance stance. Which, for the record, doesn't mean I am a Lance lover.

johny c

Dave,

I had a look at your link, but then saw this one in the margin, which shows Paul's subsequent reply to Lance. It puts a different slant on the emphasis from the linked footage on post two at the beginning of the thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUAO7xmNKeA&feature=related

I have to say I bristled a bit at Paul's original article in the Times, I thought he went a bit too far with his 'cancer' remark.

colint

don key wrote:

colint wrote:

I just don't understand how Kimmage can be described as brave. Whats he done that's brave He had nothing to lose when he wrote his book, he was a finished ex pro and doper with nowhere to go career wise. You may think he does a good job, but for gods sake he can't be described as brave.

For Gods sake I hope he/she/it doesn't exist.

You try standing up to get counted and find you are in a minority of one, if you then find that you are not brave it might be that you have either made a mistake or don't really believe in the argument you put forward in the first place. He does and he also has kind of Dublin trait that says he wont be done over and he certainly wont lie down, for any one. That is great fun as people who need to be in charge always think they can control the situation and people like Paul really mess their heads up. Those in charge are only in that position because we allow them to be, if we had many more Kimmage's the problem would be solved overnight , especially in terms of positive tests and the clear and fair operation of resulting sanctions, this is not now the case, that is the most obvious problem at the moment.

Standing up when you're finished and have got nothing to lose doesn't make you brave, it makes you opportunist. If he'd have stood up and started shouting about doping when he first came across it in the sport, that would have been brave. But he didn't, he lied and cheated himself as a doper, found he was still a nobody as a pro rider, and only then did he find the "courage" to speak out. He's a fraud, I applaud people speaking out about doping, but not this clown, his priority is Paul Kimmage, nothing else. If he had any balls, why doesn't he question other sportsmen when interviewing them ? I've asked this several times and none of his supporters have offered an answer.

blazing_saddles

adeyboy wrote:

The corticoids test was not in the positive range. End of. Red herring.

That's interesting. I haven't seen the figures for this '99 test.
You obviously have, so can you quote them off hand, or supply a link?
I think with the actual test results, we could finally lay this one to rest.

colint

Why bother with a tupe if it wasn't in the positive range ?

don key

Ciaran Hampson wrote:

Paul Kimmage is a guy who never made it as a pro, he lives and breathes on doping stories, he is one of the guys who believes than you are guilty until proved innocent.

As a journalist i have no time or respect for him. This thread seems to be focused on LAnce, Paul has nothing to do with Lance he wants everyone to be caught doping he will be happy then.

He wrote an Article about three years ago in the Sunday times basically ridiculing all the amateurs that rode up Alp d huez timing themselves, he is not a cyclist and most certainly not a journalist

First paragraph is empty, the second one also and the third one is by an ex pro admitting what he thinks(how would he not be a cyclist?), no one else seems to be able to do it.

What I'm saying is, you haven't said much.

deltadawn

colint wrote:

Standing up when you're finished and have got nothing to lose doesn't make you brave, it makes you opportunist. If he'd have stood up and started shouting about doping when he first came across it in the sport, that would have been brave. But he didn't, he lied and cheated himself as a doper, found he was still a nobody as a pro rider, and only then did he find the "courage" to speak out. He's a fraud, I applaud people speaking out about doping, but not this clown, his priority is Paul Kimmage, nothing else. If he had any balls, why doesn't he question other sportsmen when interviewing them ? I've asked this several times and none of his supporters have offered an answer.

I agree. Good point

don key

colint wrote:

NaB wrote:

To accuse Kimmage of writing a book about doping as a 'career move' is pathetic..he was frozen out of pro cycling as a consequence and many tried to discredit him for telling the truth.

It's not pathetic, its a fact. He was finished as a cyclist, even after replicating the dopers and finding he still couldn't hack it at the top level. Don't be naiive enough to think his glittering career was cut short because of his "revelations". He was going nowhere so carved a new career as a journo who murders our sport whilst kissing the ass of others to get a nice spread in the Times.

He didn't replicate the dopers and has never said so. There is as far as I know only one source for Paul Kimmage doping, Paul Kimmage.

He wasn't finished as a cyclist, he finished as a cyclist.

The insinuation with carving and careers is that that would somehow be wrong.
You took drugs, loads of riders did and still do but don't say nothing to no one, that is what is there to be read in what you write.

The sport seems to be quite happy to commit suicide.

Have you read his book, brilliant wasn't it!

colint

I have read his book, which is why I know he was finished as a cyclist and also doped. I suggest you re-read it if you didn't grasp the facts first time around.

He's obviously free to tell his story any way he wants, but I just refuse to buy this brave BS. Can you answer the questions why he didn't speak out BEFORE he doped, and why he doesn't ask about doping in other sports ?

moray_gub

colint wrote:

Standing up when you're finished and have got nothing to lose doesn't make you brave, it makes you opportunist. If he'd have stood up and started shouting about doping when he first came across it in the sport, that would have been brave. But he didn't, he lied and cheated himself as a doper, found he was still a nobody as a pro rider, and only then did he find the "courage" to speak out. He's a fraud, I applaud people speaking out about doping, but not this clown, his priority is Paul Kimmage, nothing else. If he had any balls, why doesn't he question other sportsmen when interviewing them ? I've asked this several times and none of his supporters have offered an answer.

Very good points there i note through reading some of his articles he doesnt seem to mention doping to the big golf stars or tennis stars he has interviewed over the years. You would think given the suspicions about certain Tennis players and Gary Players comments about drugs in golf he would have broached the subject.............but he didnt very strange indeed for a self proclaimed drug crusading hero.

MG

adeyboy

Blazing Saddles wrote:

adeyboy wrote:

The corticoids test was not in the positive range. End of. Red herring.

That's interesting. I haven't seen the figures for this '99 test.
You obviously have, so can you quote them off hand, or supply a link?
I think with the actual test results, we could finally lay this one to rest.

It's all out there in the public domain. One you take the time to read beneath the headlines you will find that it is always described as 'minute' traces - if people don;t want to take the explanation of the saddle cream at face value that's up to them.

I understand it's difficult to like folks who are that successful - I could never warm to Sampras with his Wimbledon wins, or Hendry in the snooker, or Woods in golf.. but over time, the best guys generally win the most.