Paul Kimmage rattles Laid back Lance!!

3SpeedsRtheonlyBike · February 2009

Just one additional note on Kimmage is it is accepted that the biography he wrote on Tony Cascarino is one of the best football books out there which I'm going to start reading in a few days, so they say and there are many of the best I am sure. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/low/1071843.stm I think it's called "Full Time." So, he has a fairly good reputation it seems. Maybe he could have gotten an interview with Lance without all this other he wrote which is antagonistic: now Armstrong would have an excuse not to be interviewed. I don't know what other books he has written.

And I've never been a reporter but I'm not going to a press conference of President Obama or PM Brown to ask them for an exclusive interview.

Looking at it too, this was something Kimmage wrote months ago. It's not like he said that to his face.

Lots of common Irish names but I don't ordinarily think of seeing the name Kimmage, does it have a French spin to it? Kim-Awge... ? Or just like how it looks?

Cycling Dave · February 2009

I think kimmage is a place in ireland.

I watched the youtube clip and thought that armstrong came across as a sanctimonious twat at points. He doesn't get my respect for the way he dealt with Kimmage. I have to confess that I don't know too much about LA, I've read his two books, but that doesn't give me too much on which to base an opinion. Can anyone give me links or sources to read up on Armstrong's history? There are a lot of people voicing scepticism at LA and his achievements and I'd like to know where I can look at info backing that stance.

dennisn · February 2009

Cycling Dave wrote:

. Can anyone give me links or sources to read up on Armstrong's history? There are a lot of people voicing scepticism at LA and his achievements and I'd like to know where I can look at info backing that stance.

Those two questions remind me of the old saying "Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it", or however it goes.

Just so you know, there are more than a few people on this forum who, I would think, will give you more than you may want to hear or can possibly read.

Dennis Noward

teagar · February 2009

Cycling Dave wrote:

I think kimmage is a place in ireland.

I watched the youtube clip and thought that armstrong came across as a sanctimonious fool at points. He doesn't get my respect for the way he dealt with Kimmage. I have to confess that I don't know too much about LA, I've read his two books, but that doesn't give me too much on which to base an opinion. Can anyone give me links or sources to read up on Armstrong's history? There are a lot of people voicing scepticism at LA and his achievements and I'd like to know where I can look at info backing that stance.

Correct me if I am wrong.

The evidence is largely circumstantial. Closest he's got to a positive was a retro test done on his '99 TDF urine sample plenty of years later which claimed to show evidence of EPO, but wasn't using techniques approved by the UCI or sometihng along those lines. He once tested positive for a small amount of cortisone that he claimed was in a saddle sore cream.

The main bugbear amongst most ( I think) is both that pretty much everyone he beat or raced with was either then, or has later to be found to be, doped. He won in an era where doping was very prolific in the peleton. How could someone clean beat all these juiced up riders?

The other is that described in bad blood whereby his attitude towards doping, and journalists keen on persuing doping, has been dubious. Before his 'retirement' he had a blacklist of journalists who would be refused access to him - these were often the journalists who were very outspoken of doping (such as Kimmage). The incident with ex-doper Simione during the 2004 tour where, Simione, having got into a break, was needlesy chased down personally by an Armstrong who had the jersey totally sown up, in order to ruin Simione's chances. Simione was soon to testify against Dr. Ferarri, who was very close to Armstrong, on doping charges. It's considered to be the most explicit demonstration of the cycling "omerta" or silence on doping, championed by Armstrong.

I think that covers it. I'm sure I'll be corrected.

I just think he's a horrible person, who can cycle fast, dope or not.

3SpeedsRtheonlyBike · February 2009

Cycling Dave wrote:

I think kimmage is a place in ireland.

I watched the youtube clip and thought that armstrong came across as a sanctimonious fool at points. He doesn't get my respect for the way he dealt with Kimmage. I have to confess that I don't know too much about LA, I've read his two books, but that doesn't give me too much on which to base an opinion. Can anyone give me links or sources to read up on Armstrong's history? There are a lot of people voicing scepticism at LA and his achievements and I'd like to know where I can look at info backing that stance.

Once again, the British word "Wind Up" comes to mind, not necessarily what Cycling Dave says here, this and one other thread here seems to be just about Armstrong and the allegations, rereading these posts is much like that book out there and in that sense, the information out there, even if one were to call it "circumstantial" I think we have a right to know and the fact that litigation has ensued to keep it from our eyes in America at least, I don't know about Great Britain is one more thing that gives one pause to think.

You know, it is to read that book by Walsh, the way Carmichael is a bit of a tainted trainer going back I'd say to his being in the '84 LA Olympics, if I am correct as a cyclist and that cycling team unethically but perhaps not illegally blood-doped. I'm not so sure about the allegations of him shooting up 18 year olds and younger but that is another topic a few years down the road.

But to ask Lance for an interview at a press conference after what Kimmage wrote, you know, that could be a classic windup. Like I said earlier, some people must know, maybe they can't say too much without credible proof. The windup seems to be a real British type trait, that's really the basic aim of that newspaper the Sun.

But with Lance, a lot of it just doesn't make sense, I said this before, he comes back, "I talked about it with my family and kids", I'm not going to be moralistic but that is also on the advertisement for the Carmichael Training Systems. But it seems he kind of left his wife and kids and unmarried is expecting to be a father again with that Olson woman, a young starlet. Ok, fine, I'm no judge, but it seems there are incongruencies with Armstrong on a frequent basis. Brett Favre He Ain't!

Sports Illustrated has good reporters who go out to investigate people, maybe they found out about A-Rod, I think that is so. I wonder if they ever spent much time following Armstrong. I am glad, we have the information out there to make our own conclusions on LA. Likewise, Sports Illustrated did not publish anything about Usain Bolt but they did do an investigation where they still found info to cast suspicion on some of the Jamaican runners.

3SpeedsRtheonlyBike · February 2009

The other is that described in bad blood whereby his attitude towards doping, and journalists keen on persuing doping, has been dubious. Before his 'retirement' he had a blacklist of journalists who would be refused access to him - these were often the journalists who were very outspoken of doping (such as Kimmage). The incident with ex-doper Simione during the 2004 tour where, Simione, having got into a break, was needlesy chased down personally by an Armstrong who had the jersey totally sown up, in order to ruin Simione's chances. Simione was soon to testify against Dr. Ferarri, who was very close to Armstrong, on doping charges. It's considered to be the most explicit demonstration of the cycling "omerta" or silence on doping, championed by Armstrong.

.

Just if one talks about Simeone, what is interesting is the similar incident with Christophe Bassons, a rider, writing what seemed to be a riders diary that was published in the news. Bassons would talk down doping, the need for a clean peloton.

It seems Lance also rode up to him in a ride, chased him down, talked a few words and though it isn't on video like the above: said; told him in the worst way possible I'd say and that's in the Walsh book; but again, 2 sides to every story, I was reading VN the other day and how LA explained away the Simeone affair. It's just that this other incident seems to mirror that one. We know wikipedia can have errors but I think they are still a fair source to look up info and they are usually accessible.

No reason to cut and paste much: but this gives us an idea:

"Bassons said Armstrong rode up alongside on the Alpe d'Huez stage to tell him "it was a mistake to speak out the way I do and he asked why I was doing it. I told him that I'm thinking of the next generation of riders. Then he said 'Why don't you leave, then?'"[8] Armstrong confirmed the story. On the main evening news on TF1, a national television station, Armstrong said: "His accusations aren't good for cycling, for his team, for me, for anybody. If he thinks cycling works like that, he's wrong and he would be better off going home."

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christophe_Bassons

aurelio_-_banned · February 2009

Once again Lionel Birnie hits the nail on the head...

KIMMAGE v ARMSTRONG

The Tour of California – I refuse to call it by its sponsor's name until the race organisers and sponsors at least acknowledge the absurdity of an EPO manufacturer sponsoring a sporting event that has had terrible problems with the mis-use of the substance – started with a showdown in the press room.

You can watch the exchange on youtube for yourself, but the essence is that Kimmage asked Armstrong what it was he admired so much about the recently-returned dopers such as Ivan Basso and Tyler Hamilton.

Armstrong began by asking: “What was your name again?”

And this is where I feel his response loses credibility. It seems highly unlikely that Armstrong would not recognise by sight and sound the face and voice of Paul Kimmage, but in the grand theatre of the moment, it was important for Armstrong to begin the effort to undermine early.

Armstrong's response is measured and seems almost rehearsed, as if he knew the question was coming. He said: “When I decided to come back for what I think is a very noble reason, you said the cancer was back, meaning me.

“I am here to fight this disease, so I don't have to deal with it, I don't have to deal with it. It goes without saying, we're not going to sit down and do an interview. I don't think anyone in this room would sit down for that interview. You are not worth the chair you are sitting on with a statement like that.”

He then goes on to answer the question and explain that David Millar 'got caught with his hand in the cookie jar”, Floyd Landis doesn't feel he did anything wrong and that he admired Ivan Basso.

The cookie jar comment, in particular, shows a complete lack of willingness to address doping in cycling as a serious issue, reducing it to the sort of thing a naughty schoolboy might do. That, surely, is not acceptable.

He added: “As a society, are we supposed to forgive? Absolutely.”

But forgiveness should be preceded by contrition. Millar's stance has been clear since joining Jonathan Vaughters's Slipstream team. Even Basso has admitted he made mistakes.

Where, though, was the condemnation of doping? Given a perfect opportunity to say once and for all that doping was unequivocally wrong, Lance Armstrong chose not to.

Now, you can say that spoken words are only so much hot air and that it's the easiest thing in the world to say one thing and do another. But to say nothing at all? That is surely bizarre.

It was classic Armstrong. Get the room on your side, narrow down the target and isolate them. “I'm not sure anyone in this room would sit down for an interview with you.” “I'm not sure anyone in the world would forgive you for that comment.”

Having met Paul Kimmage, I can say he is an intimidating character. He is the master of silence and he listens intently. In the end you become very aware of the sound of your own voice and begin to feel as if you are babbling. To be interviewed by him must be quite formidable because he has a knack of homing in on the salient point and not letting go, not letting you get away with poorly-explained half-statements.

I like him and I respect him for having the courage to sit in the front row and ask Armstrong a direct question about doping because I know that cannot have been easy.

I can see, though, that his comment in a radio interview – not as many seem to think in the Sunday Times – would have offended people.

It was a typically forthright comment. “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. Now the cancer's back.”

It is harsh, inflammatory stuff, but it is also anchored in truth.

The irony is that if Kimmage had not said it, he would not have offered Armstrong the opportunity to divert the attention away by talking about cancer. The illness is emotive and emotional and as soon as you hear the word you feel yourself shrink away.

But if Kimmage's comments offended some, are the same people not offended that Armstrong is also using cancer?

Kimmage ended by saying: “You don't have a patent on cancer. I am interested in the cancer of doping in cycling. I exposed it. You come along and it disappears.”

He's right, Armstrong doesn't have a patent on cancer.

And if you watch the clip to the end, Armstrong does something else he does best. Having singled out his target, he gets the rest of the room on side. “Switching back to the Tour of California…” he said, to guffaws and applause.

That's it. Laugh it up. Let's not address the real issue.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/The ... 77286.html

aurelio_-_banned · February 2009

Cycling Dave wrote:

Can anyone give me links or sources to read up on Armstrong's history? There are a lot of people voicing scepticism at LA and his achievements and I'd like to know where I can look at info backing that stance.

This is a good place to start.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Landis-In ... 733&sr=8-1

Also try:

http://www.filefactory.com/file/81ba27/ ... s_1_50_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/81bb10/ ... 51_100_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/aaa0f2/ ... 01_150_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/81b9c5/n/BigTex_4_pdf

And;

http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=150

http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=151

http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=154

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=11208251

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3

And:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html

http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/1

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/sport ... wanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sport ... ref=slogin

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... e_arm.html

http://www.arpuerta.com/040917.html

etc. etc. etc.

josd · February 2009

The reason i can never take paul kimmage seriously as a journalist is because he never seems to take himself seriously as a journalist. Oftentimes, he isn't trying to inform the reader of anything. He just goes off on rants about doping, or about the terrors of LA, but he never says anything of value.
Like his statements about Lance being a cancer to the sport. What is the point of saying that? All we get out of those statements are this is an angry man playing around in playground namecalling.
Additionally, his question wasn't meant to get any information out of Lance. It wasn't going to do anything for the press conference. The only reason he comes up with these questions and comments are so that he can get attention.

3SpeedsRtheonlyBike · February 2009

That's a good article above, I did not know LA asked the journalist his name first. Everyone should read it and I held back posting for it not to get lost in the shuffle.

After nobody posted yesterday: I reflected on what we often hear, the tests showing Lance may have used epo "didn't follow procedures" or some similar statement.

But this is a critical question and issue.

What happened is some riders samples of '99 were retro- tested for epo, it's kind of a complex story and epo was found and then, L'equipe did some investigative journalism to try to find out who were represented by the numbers of the samples and that's when they came to the conclusion that they were LA's and Walsh's book gives the numerical chances that they are indeed Armstrong's because they are multiple sames. I think 4 or more came out indicating epo use that matched up to LA's number.

I think I got the basics there right. When we hear "procedures weren't followed" we can think of all kinds of things, the bottles were left out in the sun or something.

2ndly, concerning Doc's comment on Kimmage above, the guy who writes the Steroid Nation blog seems "overly wrapped up" in the dope fight too. It's interesting to read how he reads the Kimmage/Armstrong altercation as well. The blog author, Dr. Gary Gaffney seems a bit of a crusader as well.

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation ... l#comments

With about 3 articles on Lance on the front page, the blog author seems to take doping real serious whereas a lot of us seem to be of the opinion it's bad for the reasons that it is cheating, the author is largely against it's affects on health.

Skip over the Baseball articles to see what he says, his point of view may match Kimmage's a bit more, I can't quite judge myself if Kimmage is a crusader or sensationalist.

I forewarn you, as if it were germaine to the subject that the blog author at 'Nation' is not real "informed" on some more "European" type sports like cycling or soccer.

Another good analyst is that guy from Australia who testified in the Insurance company trial; his name escapes me but it seems there is a lot more than just the basic datum.

dennisn · February 2009

aurelio wrote:

Cycling Dave wrote:

Can anyone give me links or sources to read up on Armstrong's history? There are a lot of people voicing scepticism at LA and his achievements and I'd like to know where I can look at info backing that stance.

This is a good place to start.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Landis-In ... 733&sr=8-1

Also try:

http://www.filefactory.com/file/81ba27/ ... s_1_50_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/81bb10/ ... 51_100_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/aaa0f2/ ... 01_150_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/81b9c5/n/BigTex_4_pdf

And;

http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=150

http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=151

http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=154

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=11208251

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3

And:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html

http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/1

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/sport ... wanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sport ... ref=slogin

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... e_arm.html

http://www.arpuerta.com/040917.html

etc. etc. etc.

I see you have quite a Lance collection. Are you the head of his fan club? Doesn't it strike you as just a little odd that you have this massive collection of "all things Lance"
yet seem to despise the man? In all seriousness, why would you bother? To what end do you do this?

Dennis Noward

moray_gub · February 2009

aurelio wrote:

Once again Lionel Birnie hits the nail on the head...

KIMMAGE v ARMSTRONG

The Tour of California – I refuse to call it by its sponsor's name

At that point i stopped reading.

MG

moray_gub · February 2009

dennisn wrote:

[
I see you have quite a Lance collection. Are you the head of his fan club? Doesn't it strike you as just a little odd that you have this massive collection of "all things Lance"
yet seem to despise the man? In all seriousness, why would you bother? To what end do you do this?

Dennis Noward

Dennis i am surprised you need to ask that question.

MG

Pat Murray · February 2009

Sorry double post

Pat Murray · February 2009

The original source of the "cancer" quote in full:

"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 skeptics: 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."

aurelio_-_banned · February 2009

3SpeedsRtheonlyBike wrote:

What happened is some riders samples of '99 were retro- tested for epo... I think I got the basics there right. When we hear "procedures weren't followed" we can think of all kinds of things, the bottles were left out in the sun or something.

No, the reason that those positive' tests never led to sanctions Against Armstrong have nothing to do with anything like that.

Firstly, there is no real doubt (other than in the mind of the acolytes of Armstrong of course), that those positive tests were valid. The testing was an extension of work done by the LNDD looking at the detectability of Epo in samples that had been stored over a relatively long period, and the quality of the LNDD's work was such that it was accepted for publication by that most respected of all the peer-reviewed academic journals, Nature.

Similarly, one of the UCI's own medical experts recently went on record to say that he thought that the tests were valid and that to claim that Armstrong was not guilty of Epo use would be to tell a lie.

http://www.feltet.dk/index.php?id_paren ... yhed=17128

The real reasons Armstrong was not sanctioned had a lot more to do with the fact that the samples were not tested according to the protocols required for a UCI dope-test. This has nothing to do with the science, but more to do with the lack of availability of 'B' samples' and so on.

For a while it looked as though the UCI would be forced to investigate the matter fully. But the UCI has always gone out of it's way to protect Armstrong, who is an icon of Verbruggen's / McQuaid's ideal of 'global cycling'. So, instead Verbruggen commissioned a hatchet job on the LNDD, the much-criticised Vrijman report. This report criticised the LNDD for not following the protocols required for a dope test to be held to be positive (lack of B samples and so on), whilst ignoring the scientific validity of the tests themselves and the fact that those protocols weren't followed because the lab was conducting a research project, rather than testing the samples in order to facilitate the prosecution of a rider or riders if any of the results came up positive! WADA later said of this report :"The Vrijman report is so lacking in professionalism and objectivity that it borders on farcical."

That the positive tests came to light at all was due to the excellent investigative journalism of Damien Ressiot of L'Equipe. The LNDD did not know whose samples they were dealing with, having only code numbers to work with. Ressiot got the doping control forms needed to link Armstrong to the tested samples from the UCI themselves, who later suspended their own medical director for giving them to Ressiot. This was despite the fact that he gave them to Ressiot with the blessing of Armstrong and his legal team who thought that the journalist was looking for evidence of abuses of the TUE system by Armstrong.

Armstrong then added to the attack by ludicrously suggesting that he was the victim of a conspiracy on the part of 'the French'. He also claimed that the Vrijman report had showed that his samples had been 'tampered' with, when it showed nothing of the sort.

Of course, this was not the first time that the UCI had gone out of it's way to protect Armstrong. For example, when he tested positive for corticoids the UCI accepted a pre-dated TUE even though only days earlier Armstrong has publicly stated that he had no such exception.

More recently Armstrong has turned down the LNDD’s offer to have his 1999 samples re-tested under the observation of his own representatives.

aurelio_-_banned · February 2009

Duplicate post. (And I only pressed the submit button once!).

aurelio_-_banned · February 2009

Moray Gub wrote:

aurelio wrote:

Once again Lionel Birnie hits the nail on the head...

KIMMAGE v ARMSTRONG

The Tour of California – I refuse to call it by its sponsor's name

At that point i stopped reading.

MG

Ah! So that's how you manage to maintain your state of denial. :roll:

aurelio_-_banned · February 2009

dennisn wrote:

I see you have quite a Lance collection. Are you the head of his fan club? Doesn't it strike you as just a little odd that you have this massive collection of "all things Lance" yet seem to despise the man? In all seriousness, why would you bother? To what end do you do this?

I have quite a collection of media articles relating to many subjects...

As to why I post links to such stories, I feel it can only be a good thing that material countering the spin, misinformation and Orwellian revisionism practiced by Armstrong's corporate-backed PR machine is kept in the public arena.

It's also rather fun to keep annoying the Armstrong fan-boys with material that undermines thier own little fantasy worlds (Although it seems some simply refuse to read anything that doesn't come directly from Armstrong's PR machine, or one of his tame mouthpieces in the media).

'The Truth? You can't handle the truth!'

dennisn · February 2009

aurelio wrote:

Cycling Dave wrote:

Can anyone give me links or sources to read up on Armstrong's history? There are a lot of people voicing scepticism at LA and his achievements and I'd like to know where I can look at info backing that stance.

This is a good place to start.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Landis-In ... 733&sr=8-1

Also try:

http://www.filefactory.com/file/81ba27/ ... s_1_50_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/81bb10/ ... 51_100_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/aaa0f2/ ... 01_150_pdf

http://www.filefactory.com/file/81b9c5/n/BigTex_4_pdf

And;

http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=150

http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=151

http://www.competitorradio.com/details.php?show=154

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=11208251

http://j.b5z.net/i/u/2132106/m/gregstef.mp3

And:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/indepth/landis ... ssage.html

http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/1

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/12/sport ... wanted=all

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/sport ... ref=slogin

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseb ... e_arm.html

http://www.arpuerta.com/040917.html

etc. etc. etc.

This post really has me wondering(really). It's fairly apparent that the poster has a pretty extensive collection of "Lance" on his computer. Now, I don't have anything "Lance" on my computer(that I know of). What has me wondering, is how many of the rest of you
have a, let's call it, a "Lance" file on yours? Does anyone else keep track AND file stuff
like this? For use later? You hear stories about obsessive fans who stalk various celebrities, movie stars, athletes, and the like. These peoples lives seem to hinge on
every little detail and utterance of the object of their obsession. Just curious if anyone
else keeps track or records of this kind of thing?

Dennis Noward

aurelio_-_banned · February 2009

dennisn wrote:

You hear stories about obsessive fans who stalk various celebrities, movie stars, athletes, and the like. These peoples lives seem to hinge on every little detail and utterance of the object of their obsession. Just curious if anyone else keeps track or records of this kind of thing?

What, you mean like the 140,000 + people who have signed up to Armstrong's 'twitter' feed? :roll:

dennisn · February 2009

aurelio wrote:

dennisn wrote:

You hear stories about obsessive fans who stalk various celebrities, movie stars, athletes, and the like. These peoples lives seem to hinge on every little detail and utterance of the object of their obsession. Just curious if anyone else keeps track or records of this kind of thing?

What, you mean like the 140,000 + people who have signed up to Armstrong's 'twitter' feed? :roll:

The question was "how many people keep this kind of "stuff" on file"?

Dennis Noward

passout · February 2009

LA will go down in history.....as the sportsman with the most complete understanding of PR, Branding and Marketing generally. He's almost on a par with Hollywood stars - Cancer seems to have done him the world of good! However I do suspect theat St Lances intentions and motivations are good. I can't say the same of the other guy! To describe a 'survivor' as cancer, just isn't pleasant or called for although I'm all for LA and the cycling commuity getting tough questions regarding doping.

dennisn · February 2009

aurelio wrote:

dennisn wrote:

You hear stories about obsessive fans who stalk various celebrities, movie stars, athletes, and the like. These peoples lives seem to hinge on every little detail and utterance of the object of their obsession. Just curious if anyone else keeps track or records of this kind of thing?

What, you mean like the 140,000 + people who have signed up to Armstrong's 'twitter' feed? :roll:

I really wasn't asking you a question Aurelio. I know you file away all things Lance.
I was asking who else does this sort of thing.

Dennis Noward

passout · February 2009

Not me. I couldn't even finish his book (which is unusual for me).

aurelio_-_banned · February 2009

dennisn wrote:

I really wasn't asking you a question Aurelio. I know you file away all things Lance. I was asking who else does this sort of thing.

I would have thought that just about everyone who has a computer at least bookmarks articles and pages they find interesting. Doing so doesn't seem odd to me.

Do I take it that you don't have any articles saved on your computer, nor a collection of 'interesting' bookmarks?

If you do would you say that this evidence of you also having some sort of 'obession' about the subject/s they relate to?

markwalker · February 2009

dennisn wrote:

aurelio wrote:

dennisn wrote:

You hear stories about obsessive fans who stalk various celebrities, movie stars, athletes, and the like. These peoples lives seem to hinge on every little detail and utterance of the object of their obsession. Just curious if anyone else keeps track or records of this kind of thing?

What, you mean like the 140,000 + people who have signed up to Armstrong's 'twitter' feed? :roll:

The question was "how many people keep this kind of "stuff" on file"?

Dennis Noward

We dont need to Dennis, the stuffs all over the place and whilst I agree that Aurelio seems at first glance to be obsessive you seem worse. At least he has information to back up his point of view. You however just seem to be pro lance and attack Aurelio personaly.

Why do you personally attack someone youve never met for disliking someone youve probably never met?

Guilty??? Not proven
Innocent not by any reasonable measure.

dennisn · February 2009

aurelio wrote:

dennisn wrote:

I really wasn't asking you a question Aurelio. I know you file away all things Lance. I was asking who else does this sort of thing.

I would have thought that just about everyone who has a computer at least bookmarks articles and pages they find interesting. Doing so doesn't seem odd to me.

Do I take it that you don't have any articles saved on your computer, nor a collection of 'interesting' bookmarks? If you do would you say that this evidence of you also having some sort of 'obession' about the subject/s they relate to?

I'm sure it doesn't seem odd to you to keep track of Lance and his comings and goings.

Yes, I have a few things filed away on my computer but they are generally things
that I LIKE, not things that enrage me or that I hate. That doesn't sound like much of a life at all. Every day waking up and the first thing you think about is what Lance said or did
while you slept?

Dennis Noward

dave_1 · February 2009

I suppose the clean majority at the tour of california deserve articles about the race rather than the doping issue only. Does anyone know,... will Kimmage write articles only about livestrong or will the race more generally get his attention? I hope he can manage coverage of both side rather than one

calvjones · February 2009

I keep nothing relating to Armstrong on my HDD, largely because it's so patently, blatantly obvious that he indulged in PEDs as to be beyond any need for re-checking, ever.

Paul Kimmage rattles Laid back Lance!!

Comments

Categories