Kimmage speaks out
Comments
-
KillerMetre wrote:This is one bitter man.BORING!
+2
Sad way to try and make a living I found his book top be so bitter.0 -
Great stuff. Take him out. Haha.
Nothing new said really but good to hear again.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Lovely comment from Kimmage:
“The phrase used often is ‘Lance Armstrong beat cancer.’ Look, the reality is that Lance Armstrong got lucky, ok? That’s what it is,” he said. “If you survive cancer you’re bloody lucky. You don’t survive cancer because you are better than anybody else or because you do things differently than anybody else, you survive cancer because you are lucky. Lance Armstrong got lucky and if you want to sell luck to people, then that’s fine, and if they want to believe in that, then that’s fine.”
Talking out of his arse here.0 -
Research the matter and see what the academics think about that point. You might surprise yourself.
Also, are you going to be the one to go to the families of those people who have lost someone to cancer and say that they died because they didn't fight hard enough?Contador is the Greatest0 -
Gazzaputt wrote:Lovely comment from Kimmage:
“The phrase used often is ‘Lance Armstrong beat cancer.’ Look, the reality is that Lance Armstrong got lucky, ok? That’s what it is,” he said. “If you survive cancer you’re bloody lucky. You don’t survive cancer because you are better than anybody else or because you do things differently than anybody else, you survive cancer because you are lucky. Lance Armstrong got lucky and if you want to sell luck to people, then that’s fine, and if they want to believe in that, then that’s fine.”
Talking out of his ars* here.
He's being a little extreme, but there's a fairly chunky nugget of truth there.
Someone who dies from cancer doesn't die because they're mentally weak. Someone who survives isn't necessarily mentally strong.0 -
Good one, I was thinking it was Sir Jagger. Man that's a big mouth - he doesn't need drugs to ride, he's got a high-flow airfilter.all show no go wrote:The most alarming thing in that video was seeing Steve Tyler from Aerosmith working in a bikeshop!
(see 1min 54 secs)When a cyclist has a disagreement with a car; it's not who's right, it's who's left.0 -
A couple of years ago I was diagnosed with (prostate) cancer. I was lucky in that it was detected early and medical treatment was successful - so I guess I'm still here due to early diagnosis and treatment - I was lucky.
It seems that the cycling authorities (UCI, team managers, etc) ignored the early symptoms that doping was becoming a problem 20 years ago when Paul Kimmage wrote his book (and I did read it at the time), hoping that by covering it up or ignoring it, the problem would go away;. As a result the problem has worsened such that any remedial action ends up being far more drastic than it needed to be.
Ignoring the symptoms, whether it is of cancer or doping is definetly the wrong way to go and only makes things worse in the end.0 -
hommelbier wrote:A couple of years ago I was diagnosed with (prostate) cancer. I was lucky in that it was detected early and medical treatment was successful - so I guess I'm still here due to early diagnosis and treatment - I was lucky.
It seems that the cycling authorities (UCI, team managers, etc) ignored the early symptoms that doping was becoming a problem 20 years ago when Paul Kimmage wrote his book (and I did read it at the time), hoping that by covering it up or ignoring it, the problem would go away;. As a result the problem has worsened such that any remedial action ends up being far more drastic than it needed to be.
Ignoring the symptoms, whether it is of cancer or doping is definetly the wrong way to go and only makes things worse in the end.
This is probably the best post I have seen on here and I've been posting for nearly three years0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Gazzaputt wrote:Lovely comment from Kimmage:
“The phrase used often is ‘Lance Armstrong beat cancer.’ Look, the reality is that Lance Armstrong got lucky, ok? That’s what it is,” he said. “If you survive cancer you’re bloody lucky. You don’t survive cancer because you are better than anybody else or because you do things differently than anybody else, you survive cancer because you are lucky. Lance Armstrong got lucky and if you want to sell luck to people, then that’s fine, and if they want to believe in that, then that’s fine.”
Talking out of his ars* here.
He's being a little extreme, but there's a fairly chunky nugget of truth there.
Someone who dies from cancer doesn't die because they're mentally weak. Someone who survives isn't necessarily mentally strong.
Luck isn't a word that should be associated with cancer imo.0 -
I liked it too.TakeTheHighRoad wrote:This is probably the best post I have seen on here and I've been posting for nearly three years
Gazzaput: luck does play a big role. You can tilt the odds in your favour by getting early diagnosis, that's the big factor. Once it's confirmed you can play the system to get the best treatment possible but from that moment onwards, you do need a lot of luck to hope the wrong cells don't start multiplying out of control. Some make it, some don't and often the difference is luck.0 -
Gazzaputt wrote:Lovely comment from Kimmage:
“The phrase used often is ‘Lance Armstrong beat cancer.’ Look, the reality is that Lance Armstrong got lucky, ok? That’s what it is,” he said. “If you survive cancer you’re bloody lucky. You don’t survive cancer because you are better than anybody else or because you do things differently than anybody else, you survive cancer because you are lucky. Lance Armstrong got lucky and if you want to sell luck to people, then that’s fine, and if they want to believe in that, then that’s fine.”
Talking out of his ars* here.
No he's not, he's just making a comment out of your comfort zone.0 -
+1 there seem to be a few people who will bury their head in the sand rather than face uncomfortable factsThe Mad Rapper wrote:Gazzaputt wrote:Lovely comment from Kimmage:
“The phrase used often is ‘Lance Armstrong beat cancer.’ Look, the reality is that Lance Armstrong got lucky, ok? That’s what it is,” he said. “If you survive cancer you’re bloody lucky. You don’t survive cancer because you are better than anybody else or because you do things differently than anybody else, you survive cancer because you are lucky. Lance Armstrong got lucky and if you want to sell luck to people, then that’s fine, and if they want to believe in that, then that’s fine.”
Talking out of his ars* here.
No he's not, he's just making a comment out of your comfort zone.All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....0 -
Kimmage splits opinion just as much as Lance does
I think Kimmage has valid points but using lucky and cancer in the same sentence does him no favours (even if he is right that Lance uses cancer as a shield)
as for Lance - look at all the people who came second and third in the tour when he was winning, he beat them all on nothing but bread and water? lance was one of many using PEDs, certainly not the only one though"I get paid to make other people suffer on my wheel, how good is that"
--Jens Voight0 -
What's the problem with using lucky and cancer in the same sentence? It's possible to be both unlucky and lucky you know.Scottish and British...and a bit French0
-
-
Kimmage seems like a pretty vile creature, but he's right to some extent - Armstrong doesn't have a patent on cancer.
I suppose the innevitable consequence of any doping allegations sticking is the collapse of LA's credibility and therefore the collapse of LAF. That said, I don't necessarily buy the argument that because he's done so much in the 'cancer community', he should be exempt from accounting for any mistakes/decisions he has made during his racing career. In any event, until proven to be true, all allegations remain speculation, albeit with strong anecdotal/heresay evidence.
Armstrong has dug his heels in so publicly for so long, this can only end in tears...0 -
bianchimoon wrote:
I think for that to be the case Mr Armstrong would have to prove it was libel, there lies the problem. IIRC i'm sure kimmage has already put his words into a Times article and given that britain is a place of choice for libel actions and Mr Armstrong hasn't taken him to court that speaks for itself.Rick Chasey wrote:Kléber wrote:Strong words! What was once the stuff of forum chatter is now mainstream.
I'd imagine the libel laws in the UK prevent him from saying that over here.
Not quite. Armstrong has to show that what Kimmage says damages his reputation. If he can, the onus is then on Kimmage to show that the damaging words are truthful. Armstrong doesn't have to prove a negative - ie prove that he didn't dope. Kimmage has to prove that he did.0 -
Flanners1 wrote:KillerMetre wrote:This is one bitter man.BORING!
Bitter? About what exactly? I love the way anyone who challenges deceit and cheating etc in life gets branded a loony or has an axe to grind.
I've got to ask, if doping is as widespread as claimed then why does he seem to fixate on Lance? There are a boat load more cyclists going back 20 years, with the possible exception of Sastre, who have been caught, suspected of, or admitted to doping who are all equally "fraudulent" and deserving of his scorn.0 -
Monty Zoncolan wrote:bianchimoon wrote:
I think for that to be the case Mr Armstrong would have to prove it was libel, there lies the problem. IIRC i'm sure kimmage has already put his words into a Times article and given that britain is a place of choice for libel actions and Mr Armstrong hasn't taken him to court that speaks for itself.Rick Chasey wrote:Kléber wrote:Strong words! What was once the stuff of forum chatter is now mainstream.
I'd imagine the libel laws in the UK prevent him from saying that over here.
Not quite. Armstrong has to show that what Kimmage says damages his reputation. If he can, the onus is then on Kimmage to show that the damaging words are truthful. Armstrong doesn't have to prove a negative - ie prove that he didn't dope. Kimmage has to prove that he did.
Quite.
Hence he won't be saying that here in the UK untill the frankly bizzare law changes.0 -
-
There is a passage in "It's Not About the Bike" where Armstrong acknowledges that while he was being treated for cancer the paralegal of his agent, Bill Stapelton, got cancer and died. He admits that he was lucky to beat the disease.
I guess that means Lance was talking out of his ass, too.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
-
Gaun yersel' Kimmage, and sock it to Armstong.
'Coz you're completely correct, m'dere, and one day thou shalt be hallowed (along with Pierre Ballester and David Walsh) in the halls of journalism.
Juliet, please get off that fence. You're too wise and too good a writer to spout the "I really don't know if he doped or not" tripe. If you can't comment because you don't want a lawyer knocking on your door, or you're afraid to be blacklisted as a journalist, fine. Say so.
I've posted before about my thoughts regarding the power of positive thinking overcoming cancer, so I'll not rant again, but the cruelty of seeing patients (and their relatives) march down the 'I/you can do this, I/you just have to believe' when there is a time to live, a time to die, and a time to prepare for death............Kimmage is right to say that sometimes, it's just luck. And luck can by bluddy cruel at times.
pass slipped stitch over0 -
Tusher wrote:Gaun yersel' Kimmage, and sock it to Armstong.
'Coz you're completely correct, m'dere, and one day thou shalt be hallowed (along with Pierre Ballester and David Walsh) in the halls of journalism.
Juliet, please get off that fence. You're too wise and too good a writer to spout the "I really don't know if he doped or not" tripe. If you can't comment because you don't want a lawyer knocking on your door, or you're afraid to be blacklisted as a journalist, fine. Say so.
I've posted before about my thoughts regarding the power of positive thinking overcoming cancer, so I'll not rant again, but the cruelty of seeing patients (and their relatives) march down the 'I/you can do this, I/you just have to believe' when there is a time to live, a time to die, and a time to prepare for death............Kimmage is right to say that sometimes, it's just luck. And luck can by bluddy cruel at times.
pass slipped stitch over
In defence of Juliet Macur, I think one needs to read between the lines of what she's saying. "I really don't know if he doped, but every other guy on the podium has been busted". It's clear to me what Juliet thinks, but perhaps she needs to fulminate like Kimmage to make it obvious.
As for the other points, Pasteur said that chance favours the prepared mind. Studies show the placebo effect in operation, albeit very mildly, even in diseases like cancer. I'm sure a positive and supportive environment can help, whether the patient survives or not.
I don't think Armstrong espouses the belief that "only the strong survive" - that seems to be something that is projected onto him by the haterz.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Davey, yes, I can agree with the positive and supportive environment, and the Harvard study regarding those who planned out their future, and prepared for it/believed it would come true, and it did. But sometimes an illness (cancer and others) cannot be cured, but patients are made to feel a degree of guilt when they choose to plan their death. And cancer seems to be particularly prone to this. You rarely hear an elderly/frail patient with a fractured neck of femur (which may well lead to complications which will cure them) saying "I'm going to fight this". How often do relatives tell someone with pneumonia to "Fight this"?
I can't stand Armstrong because he's Armstong. And I can't stand Ricco because he's Ricco. I love the soap opera complexities of pro cycling. But Armstrong has grown rich reaping the financial rewards of his Livestrong organisation. There's the charity side of Livestrong, and I don't doubt that it's done a lot of good for many thousands, but there's also the .org branch.
Juliet Macur- yes, you have a very valid point, it is clear what she thinks, but she doesn't/can't say so.0 -
Gazzaputt wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:[quote="Gazzaputt
Luck isn't a word that should be associated with cancer imo.
Whilst no-one would choose to have cancer there is without doubt a huge element of luck. You either have a malignancy which is diagnosed early enough and/or responsive to treatment, or you don't. Either way the emotional, physical and physcological impact of cancer is huge for the patient and their families but no-one get's to choose which malignancy they develop so luck has to play a part.0 -
hommelbier wrote:How refreshing to see someone say what they think. Link to tv programme from the Netherlands
http://nos.nl/video/210777-lance-armstrong-gebruikte-doping.html
Nothing much new here kinda said the same a year or so back , PK along with a good few in here always seem to me to come across as people who probably wish LA had not survived cancer,amazing that people can have so much hate and vitriol for a bike rider but there you go.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
