Paul Kimmage rattles Laid back Lance!!
Comments
-
I own a copy of Kimmages book, i cannot understand why so many think it is the holy grail of anti doping, its riddled with self pity and not alot else.
I thought before i read the book id at least have something in common with Kimmage being a Dubliner myself, i didnt, and in fact by the end actually disliking him.
Its hard not to think Kimmages pro career is the reason he feels so enbittered, he really wasnt good enough and we used to do the "Kimmage" if we quit when cycing as kids in Dublin.
Armstrong was very restrained addressing Kimmage in my opinion, im afraid if he had said the cancer statement about me or my family hed be having a future appointment with Doctor Dublinforehead within seconds
0 -
Kimmage's feelings don't matter, nor do Armstrong. The point isn't whether you won 7 Tours or struggled on the RMO, it's not about the messenger, it's about the questions being asked and the answers given.0
-
I saw little sign of Kimmage being 'embittered' in his book. Sad and disillusioned about what had happened to a sport he so obviously once loved maybe, but to claim that he was simply 'embittered' is to unfairly play down the hopes he obviously had for the future of the sport.i dance on pedals wrote:Its hard not to think Kimmages pro career is the reason he feels so enbittered
In fact Kimmage for a while became very positive about the sport, writing how he once again could watch the Tour whilst 'believing' in the racing and so on. This had a lot to do with Patrice Clerc's approach to the problem of doping. Then Armstrong announced his comeback, McQuaid (and possibly Armstrong) persuaded Mme. Amaury to sack Patrice Clerc and hand the doping controls at the Tour back to the UCI, who will doubtless do the same ineffectual job they did at the Giro last year and will also ensure that Armstrong’s comeback is not marred by any 'embarrassing' incidents. Given this Kimmage is quite right to link Armstrong's comeback to the way the issue of doping has seen so many people desperately trying top push the issue of doping once again 'onto the back burner'.
The Sunday Times
July 27, 2008
Back from the abyss
An anti-doping team has restored my faith in the future of the Tour de France
Paul Kimmage
....During the third stage to Nantes, I watched transfixed as Will Frischkorn, a 27-year-old Virginian, broke clear of the pack with two French riders and as they entered the final kilometre, I did something I hadn’t done in almost 20 years. I was cheering for a rider. I was rooting for Will. “Oh Christ!” I thought, “They’ve transformed me into a fan!”
...I’ve spent a good portion of my past 20 years enraged by dopers such as Virenque, Riis, Ivan Basso and Hamilton and seized every opportunity to expose them. No apologies. They deserve our contempt . . . but not as much as the guys who are trying to compete clean deserve our support. I’d lost sight of that. To David Millar, Christian Vande Velde, Ryder Hesjedal, Will Frischkorn, Danny Pate, Julian Dean, Martijn Maaskant, Trent Lowe and Magnus Backstedt, thanks for the reminder.
The sport has a hell of a lot to do before it drags itself from the mire, but with guys like Vaughters it has a chance. I hope Vande Velde comes back and wins the Tour next year. I hope Millar wins the stage on the Champs-Elysees and then sits down to write his book. I hope that every Tour I watch from now is as much fun as this one was. I hope.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 407072.ece0 -
Yes, Armstrong's treatment of Kimmage was every bit as petty and childish as Alex Ferguson not talking to the BBC - 'you're not worth the chair you're sitting on' is more worthy of the playground than adult debate, wouldn't you think?
As for not cutting friends out of his life - he was great friends with the Andreus and the Hamiltons (particularly close to Mrs H I hear) and I don't see them all palling around together.0 -
micron wrote:As for not cutting friends out of his life - he was great friends with the Andreus and the Hamiltons (particularly close to Mrs H I hear) and I don't see them all palling around together.
Is that why Tyler is getting divorced?
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
micron wrote:Yes, Armstrong's treatment of Kimmage was every bit as petty and childish as Alex Ferguson not talking to the BBC - 'you're not worth the chair you're sitting on' is more worthy of the playground than adult debate, wouldn't you think?
I think it's safe to say; there's a fair bit of needle, between Armstrong and Kimmage! "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
I heard it was Armstrong that called in a number on Tugboat when Hamilton left for CSC - they've never got on since Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
aurelio wrote:
I saw little sign of Kimmage being 'embittered' in his book. Sad and disillusioned about what had happened to a sport he so obviously once loved maybe, but to claim that he was simply 'embittered' is to unfairly play down the hopes he obviously had for the future of the sport.i dance on pedals wrote:Its hard not to think Kimmages pro career is the reason he feels so enbittered
In fact Kimmage for a while became very positive about the sport, writing how he once again could watch the Tour whilst 'believing' in the racing and so on. This had a lot to do with Patrice Clerc's approach to the problem of doping. Then Armstrong announced his comeback, McQuaid (and possibly Armstrong) persuaded Mme. Amaury to sack Patrice Clerc and hand the doping controls at the Tour back to the UCI, who will doubtless do the same ineffectual job they did at the Giro last year and will also ensure that Armstrong’s comeback is not marred by any 'embarrassing' incidents. Given this Kimmage is quite right to link Armstrong's comeback to the way the issue of doping has seen so many people desperately trying top push the issue of doping once again 'onto the back burner'.
The Sunday Times
July 27, 2008
Back from the abyss
An anti-doping team has restored my faith in the future of the Tour de France
Paul Kimmage
....During the third stage to Nantes, I watched transfixed as Will Frischkorn, a 27-year-old Virginian, broke clear of the pack with two French riders and as they entered the final kilometre, I did something I hadn’t done in almost 20 years. I was cheering for a rider. I was rooting for Will. “Oh Christ!” I thought, “They’ve transformed me into a fan!”
...I’ve spent a good portion of my past 20 years enraged by dopers such as Virenque, Riis, Ivan Basso and Hamilton and seized every opportunity to expose them. No apologies. They deserve our contempt . . . but not as much as the guys who are trying to compete clean deserve our support. I’d lost sight of that. To David Millar, Christian Vande Velde, Ryder Hesjedal, Will Frischkorn, Danny Pate, Julian Dean, Martijn Maaskant, Trent Lowe and Magnus Backstedt, thanks for the reminder.
The sport has a hell of a lot to do before it drags itself from the mire, but with guys like Vaughters it has a chance. I hope Vande Velde comes back and wins the Tour next year. I hope Millar wins the stage on the Champs-Elysees and then sits down to write his book. I hope that every Tour I watch from now is as much fun as this one was. I hope.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 407072.ece
And Vaughters is every bit as guilty of Omerta for the period when Kimmage was busy exposing dopers. To that extent, for all his nice Ivy League manners and "extensive internal testing" he's ultimately no better than Riis, who has at least admitted the worst of his sins in public record.
His attack on the UCI misses out the key point that AFLD bagged a few riders on French soil due to the co-incidence of a ratified test and extensive use of the product tested for. It also misses that cycling's governance has been ever thus when it comes to avoiding the embarrassment because it is purely venal in its aspirations, not corinthian.0 -
Maybe. But that doesn't alter the point I was making: that rather than being 'embittered' Kimmage had been speaking in a very positive way about the future of the sport. That is, until the second coming and the accompanying, UCI-dictated retreat on the doping issue by bodies such as the ASO.leguape wrote:Vaughters is every bit as guilty of Omerta for the period when Kimmage was busy exposing dopers. To that extent, for all his nice Ivy League manners and "extensive internal testing" he's ultimately no better than Riis, who has at least admitted the worst of his sins in public record.0 -
Frankly I'm with Kimmidge on this one, whilst Armstrong's not being actually caught, he's to mind a cheat even if he's personnally never doped (of which I personally have doubts because there is no transparent evidence to the contrary).
How could he have not known that the teammates such as Hamilton, Heras, Landis et al were doping. The insane pace Postal and then Disco rode was instrumental in his wins and their subsequent convictions tarnish his record.
Everything else about Armstrong suggest's he was in complete control of his team. To make the excuse he didn't know is not good enough. If there has been one person who could have delivered cycling from the doping it was Armstrong, and Kimmage is correct in his analysis that Armstrong is tainted.
Even now Armstrong's following the old script, albeit more PR savvy these days. Read Rough Ride and it's apparent Kimmage is a true fan of the sport, how can you not be and all these years later he was proven correct.
Sadly the fact Armstrong continuous to dodge the doping issue only devalues his Cancer initiatives. Ironically even now by being completely transparent to those most critical of his exploits, Armstrong and his Cancer campaign have the most to gain.One can never have too many bikes, although the missus draws the line at a turbo in the living room. http://commutebybike.wordpress.com/0 -
Slagging off druggie pro cyclists is fine in my book but the cancer reference from this hack was unwise and uncalled for. Cancer is a much more significant topic than cycling or any sport. I think that Lance's response pointed this out clearly but I disagree that his retort was particulary well made or eloquent - it sounded childish. Overall I'm with LA on this one and, like most people, I don't care about doping in pro cycling. I do care about cancer though.'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0
-
iainf72 wrote:micron wrote:As for not cutting friends out of his life - he was great friends with the Andreus and the Hamiltons (particularly close to Mrs H I hear) and I don't see them all palling around together.
Is that why Tyler is getting divorced?
call me old fashioned, but surely there is no need for such remarks ... unless of course Tyler Hamilton pitches up at your house when your wife has a 'headache' and sits at the end of your bed singing 'you're not getting any' ...0 -
aurelio wrote:
I saw little sign of Kimmage being 'embittered' in his book. Sad and disillusioned about what had happened to a sport he so obviously once loved maybe, but to claim that he was simply 'embittered' is to unfairly play down the hopes he obviously had for the future of the sport.i dance on pedals wrote:Its hard not to think Kimmages pro career is the reason he feels so enbittered
In fact Kimmage for a while became very positive about the sport, writing how he once again could watch the Tour whilst 'believing' in the racing and so on. This had a lot to do with Patrice Clerc's approach to the problem of doping. Then Armstrong announced his comeback, McQuaid (and possibly Armstrong) persuaded Mme. Amaury to sack Patrice Clerc and hand the doping controls at the Tour back to the UCI, who will doubtless do the same ineffectual job they did at the Giro last year and will also ensure that Armstrong’s comeback is not marred by any 'embarrassing' incidents. Given this Kimmage is quite right to link Armstrong's comeback to the way the issue of doping has seen so many people desperately trying top push the issue of doping once again 'onto the back burner'.
The Sunday Times
July 27, 2008
Back from the abyss
An anti-doping team has restored my faith in the future of the Tour de France
Paul Kimmage
....During the third stage to Nantes, I watched transfixed as Will Frischkorn, a 27-year-old Virginian, broke clear of the pack with two French riders and as they entered the final kilometre, I did something I hadn’t done in almost 20 years. I was cheering for a rider. I was rooting for Will. “Oh Christ!” I thought, “They’ve transformed me into a fan!”
...I’ve spent a good portion of my past 20 years enraged by dopers such as Virenque, Riis, Ivan Basso and Hamilton and seized every opportunity to expose them. No apologies. They deserve our contempt . . . but not as much as the guys who are trying to compete clean deserve our support. I’d lost sight of that. To David Millar, Christian Vande Velde, Ryder Hesjedal, Will Frischkorn, Danny Pate, Julian Dean, Martijn Maaskant, Trent Lowe and Magnus Backstedt, thanks for the reminder.
The sport has a hell of a lot to do before it drags itself from the mire, but with guys like Vaughters it has a chance. I hope Vande Velde comes back and wins the Tour next year. I hope Millar wins the stage on the Champs-Elysees and then sits down to write his book. I hope that every Tour I watch from now is as much fun as this one was. I hope.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/ ... 407072.ece
How about coming up with some original ideas instead of just quotes by others?
Dennis Noward0 -
Got an idea. How about we switch things around and get aurelio, micron, etc. to
take on the job of defending Lance and the rest of us do the slamming. It would improve
everyone's debating skills, and if you can't bring yourself to defend or slam him you can always use me as a focal point. I'm easy to hate or like.
Dennis Noward0 -
Brillant two rather bitter and unpleasant characters having a go at each other hilarous, they both deserve each others company :twisted:Cancer is a much more significant topic than cycling or any sport.
Decided by who exactly? So people illegally using products designed to treat cancer, but instead to personally make millions is fine and not worthy of debate?0 -
Got another idea. How about we talk about something else?___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
If there hadn't been a recent story one morning in the news on cycling; I wouldn't have gotten caught back up in to it and it had nothing to do with Lance or anything like that but I'm sorry that article did catch my eye and start reading up a little.
Maybe if there is a 'clean peloton': in an odd kind of way, maybe some riders will appreciate what Kimmage did, nothing against LA in this posting but 10 years ago, peer pressure may have been against those exposing doping, it looks that way. Maybe Kimmage's words will be brave enough to give some riders something to wrestle for a clean fight and dopers will be stigmatised.
Just thoughts on a possible scenario, not to offend anyone.0 -
What, you mean like the first 200 words of my post? :roll: :roll:dennisn wrote:
How about coming up with some original ideas instead of just quotes by others?aurelio wrote:] I saw little sign of Kimmage being 'embittered' in his book...
Dennis Noward
P.s. I have to say that your posts, whilst being devoid of any real insight, information or humour do seem to be coming rather personal and vindictive....0 -
Could be fun. [Enter Armstrong fan-boy mode]dennisn wrote:Got an idea. How about we switch things around and get aurelio, micron, etc. to take on the job of defending Lance and the rest of us do the slamming. It would improve everyone's debating skills,
Whadda mean Lance doped NO WAY MAN Just look at his wikipedia page and you will see that Lance had a GODDAMN BIG HEART he is a GENETIC FREAK man that's all, not like those pinko commie faggot froggies there just out to get Lance cos THEY HATE HIM and cant bear to SEE A REAL WINNER like Lance. NO WAY would Lance dope he had cancer and if you had cancer NO WAY would you dope.
GO LANCE and GOD BLESS AMERICA.
[/Armstrong fan-boy mode]
Over to you Dennis... 0 -
aurelio wrote:
Just giving back what lots of people seem to be giving out. Childish??? You better believe it. But I felt that "why should people who criticize others not be open to a bit of criticism
themselves"? So their you have it. If any of mine seemed a bit "personal and vindictive"
I'm pretty sure I could go back through the postings of quite a few people and find more than a few "personal and vindictive" items.
Dennis Noward0 -
eh wrote:Brillant two rather bitter and unpleasant characters having a go at each other hilarous, they both deserve each others company :twisted:Cancer is a much more significant topic than cycling or any sport.
Decided by who exactly? So people illegally using products designed to treat cancer, but instead to personally make millions is fine and not worthy of debate?
Decided by me...get over it!
But seriously...nobody chooses cancer, druggie pro cyclists (is there another type?), choose to take those nasty chemicals on-board. You are right of course - feel free debate away but the wider issue of cancer & it's impacts will always overshadow your debate, however much you care about it. Lance's Hollywood status is testament to that.'Happiness serves hardly any other purpose than to make unhappiness possible' Marcel Proust.0 -
aurelio wrote:
Could be fun. [Enter Armstrong fan-boy mode]dennisn wrote:Got an idea. How about we switch things around and get aurelio, micron, etc. to take on the job of defending Lance and the rest of us do the slamming. It would improve everyone's debating skills,
Whadda mean Lance doped NO WAY MAN Just look at his wikipedia page and you will see that Lance had a GODDAMN BIG HEART he is a GENETIC FREAK man that's all, not like those pinko commie faggot froggies there just out to get Lance cos THEY HATE HIM and cant bear to SEE A REAL WINNER like Lance. NO WAY would Lance dope he had cancer and if you had cancer NO WAY would you dope.
GO LANCE and GOD BLESS AMERICA.
[/Armstrong fan-boy mode]
Over to you Dennis...
You know this may not be one of my better ideas. I've got the feeling that no matter who says what that it won't ring true. Let's just take a pass on it, shall we? Call me a coward
and an idiot, for even suggesting it. I don't see it working very well. Everybody's mind is already made up on this subject. I haven't seen anyone writing in saying they have been "converted" or "finally seen the light" either one way or another.
Dennis Noward0 -
And you've only just realised?Le Blaireau (1)0
-
'Everybody's mind is already made up on this subject. I haven't seen anyone writing in saying they have been "converted" or "finally seen the light" either one way or another'.
20 years ago I would have defended my cycling heroes to the hilt on the subject of doping, even the ones I wasn't a particular fan of. I suppose the road to Damascus is a long (and painful) one.
0 -
Tell you what Aurelio, you convinced me. That was a perfect summation of thousands of fanboy posts.
Dan0 -
flattythehurdler wrote:Tell you what Aurelio, you convinced me. That was a perfect summation of thousands of fanboy posts.
I have to disagree with your statement of "thousands of fanboy posts". Maybe on other sites but on this one I would call it differently. I'd bet that 90%, or more of the posts here
are NOT so called "fanboy".
Dennis Noward0 -
I don't recall seeing any posts on this site like aurelio's spoof.
I guess there must be somewhere on the net all these bros and dudes hang out, but it ain't here.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
i was joking :?Dan0
-
Oh, I have......seen hundreds of posts exactly like Aurelio's.
Fortunately, not by hundreds of fanboys, just a handful of extremists on various cycling forums.
Actually, I think they hit more of a "peak", when "Innocent" Floyd was the flavour of the month.
This is a pretty "soft core" site, on both sides, in that respect.
However, the number of xenophobic rants increases, when one reads US based articles on LA and their follow up comments.
A little knowledge and all that......."Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0
