Yet Another Cycling Forum

General Category => Freewheeling => Racing => Topic started by: Rhys W on January 12, 2011, 03:57:18 pm

Title: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: Rhys W on January 12, 2011, 03:57:18 pm
Looks like a recent interview on Dutch TV. (http://nos.nl/video/210777-lance-armstrong-gebruikte-doping.html)
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: alexb on January 12, 2011, 05:56:37 pm
I think Kimmage has lost all sense of proportion where Lance is concerned.

If the current US federal investigation clears Lance, Paul will still be pointing the finger.
If he's guilty, well, what has Paul gained?
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: Steve Kish on January 12, 2011, 09:12:18 pm
Certainly seems to be no love lost twixt the two of them. :-\
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: Rich753 on January 14, 2011, 08:52:14 pm
Oh yeah, Kimmage definitely blames Armstrong/Bruyneel for taking racing cycling back to the dark side after the Festina affair offered a glimpse of redemption.  And all credit to him in my view.

Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: keepontriking on January 14, 2011, 10:50:24 pm
Oh yeah, Kimmage definitely blames Armstrong/Bruyneel for taking racing cycling back to the dark side after the Festina affair offered a glimpse of redemption.  And all credit to him in my view.

+1

Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: kcass on January 15, 2011, 12:30:13 am

    YouTube
        - Lance Armstrong & Paul Kimmage verbal battle at TOC
   (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZgns7CXeUI)

From last year or the year before's Tour of California - Armstrong sounds surprisingly restrained talking to Kimmage
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: Hot Flatus on January 15, 2011, 06:34:36 am
Kimmage has made a career out of this.

Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: bobb on January 15, 2011, 08:18:51 am
Kimmage is a fucking knob. Obviously I'm no Lance fan boi, but what's done is done. Sure, I imagine Armstrong took at least "something" during his career - everyone else was, so I'd guess he did too. But there's no point in going after him. Just leave it alone and get on with your life, Paul.....
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on January 15, 2011, 09:11:52 am
1998 frightened a lot of the pros but then Armstrong turned it up to 11. The truth needs to be told, particularly since corruption of the UCI and WADA is a big part of the problem.
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: keepontriking on January 15, 2011, 10:54:04 am
Kimmage has made a career out of this.

Which doesn't make him wrong.
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: Hot Flatus on January 15, 2011, 12:14:31 pm
Not saying he is....
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: rdaviesb on January 15, 2011, 12:37:50 pm
But I think we need to move on. The issue we should be focussing on is not what happened in the past (its been raked over enough and there comes a point where enough is enough), but how we move forward in a demonstrably clean way. I'm prepared to give Armstrong the benefit of the doubt, as I don't yet see evidence (as opposed to rumour) to the contrary. A fair world has to accept that some people might get away with things that in hindsight might be considered wrong. Kimmage needs to understand that 1+1<>4. He should be able to demonstrate an argument which really does show that 1+1=2. As for him making a career out of it, I think that's exactly what he's done, but we all make careers out of our own little specialisms.
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: Hot Flatus on January 15, 2011, 12:41:39 pm
'Moving on'  can't happen until those at the very top change their ways.  I'm with LWaB on this.

Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: sg37409 on January 15, 2011, 02:20:49 pm
Quote
'Moving on'  can't happen until those at the very top change their ways

Completely agree with this, which is why I think its so important that those at the top (and I include LA) are brought to book. The lesson is that you can cheat and lie and get away with it.  Its starting to turn, but look at last years tour. LA is the biggest character in the sport, there is a lot of top riders just now rode in his winning era, and the way they see to succeed is formulated from the examples set by LA.
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: rafletcher on January 15, 2011, 02:26:16 pm
1998 frightened a lot of the pros but then Armstrong turned it up to 11. The truth needs to be told, particularly since corruption of the UCI and WADA is a big part of the problem.

That statement could be taken a libellous.
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: Hot Flatus on January 15, 2011, 02:29:26 pm
And?

It's not like it is the first time it has been mooted   ;D
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on January 15, 2011, 02:42:16 pm

That statement could be taken a libellous.

Have a good look at the evidence already in the public arena and you may find a better word, 'accurate'.
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: Seineseeker on January 15, 2011, 09:21:43 pm
Kimmage wrote his book and tried to lift the lid on doping, got shunned by almost everyone in the process. So if and when LA gets brought to book (I doubt it, he has so much influence and power) I imagine redemption will be all the sweeter for taking so long.

You either consider Kimmage to be a crusader to get rid of doping from cycling, and you can't argue it hasn't been rife since forever, or you think he is just banging the same old broken record and making his money out of it. I think he is closer to the former rather than later of those two choices.
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: Hot Flatus on January 15, 2011, 09:24:53 pm
I think he's a bit of both  ;D
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: Rhys W on January 19, 2011, 12:23:22 pm
More revelations in Sports Illustrated (not Swimsuit Issue). (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/more/01/18/lance.armstrong/index.html)

Still no hard evidence, but they're not letting it go.
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: bobb on January 19, 2011, 04:57:19 pm
I got bored reading that, so went straight to the swimsuit section  :P
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: mondobongo on January 20, 2011, 09:59:35 am
Kimmage wants Armstrongs head so badly that he can come across wrong sometimes. I would sooner have him there banging away and stopping us from being sucked in again with slick PR than him not be there.

I think its important that Larry is not allowed to get away with it for the sake of the sport and hopefully he won't.
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: Clandy on January 21, 2011, 08:07:21 am
But didn't you know? All cyclists are on drugs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmu1CZEN6Yk)…  ::-)
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: inc on January 21, 2011, 08:49:20 am
Kimage is spot on. It is not just the riders but the whole organisation. He mentioned the UCI. If there is enough evidence and Armstrong gets discredited I think it will be a major turning point in pro cycling. It is getting cleaner as a sport but with seemingly every winner for decades found guilty of doping the temptation must be strong if you want to reach the top. It won't stop me watching the classics and tours I just sit back and watch the show.
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: teethgrinder on January 23, 2011, 05:02:22 pm
I think he's got a bee in his bonnet about LA in paticular.
It looks to me like LA has been singled out and he's got a vendetta.
I thought that when LA's rivals were found out as drugs cheats. LA was always under the most scrutiny, but when his team turned some of that scrutiny onto his rivals, they got caught. So for that reason I think it's funny. but that would explain why he has a vendetta against LA.
I don't know why LA in particular is a fraud. At worst, he is no worse than the other drugs cheats he beat. How come the ones that got caught aren't as much of the problem?
I've never thought of LA as a promoter of drugs use in sport either. from reading his books, I'd say the opposite.
If LA has been getting away with cheating because of corruption, then yes, he should be brought to light, but much more so those corrupt figures of authority.

Personally, I think they're upset because an American dominated their race for so long. If he was French he'd be a national hero.
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: FatBloke on January 23, 2011, 06:08:01 pm
LA is the most tested athlete in the history of sport. He's either squeaky clean or he's so lucky that he should win the lottery every day even though it's only run once a week!!!

I believe the former to be true.  :smug:

Sure he takes drugs, testosterone especially, but so would you if you'd had your bollocks removed!!

Paul Kimmage comes across in his book as a second rate cyclist who believes he is so much better than he actually is and says that everyone else is cheating to make up for his own inadequacies.
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on January 23, 2011, 06:15:28 pm
He isn't even the most tested cyclist, let alone the most tested athlete in history. Tie that up with payments to the UCI and conflicts of interest with the USADA and have a think about what might happen to any positive results. Armstrong has already collected a TUE after testing positive, EPO in his 1999 TdF B-samples (good enough for his EPO doping schedule to be determined), plenty of teammates and support staff reporting his using PEDs.
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: FatBloke on January 23, 2011, 06:19:07 pm
He isn't even the most tested cyclist, let alone the most tested athlete in history. Tie that up with payments to the UCI and conflicts of interest with the USADA and have a think about what might happen to any positive results. Armstrong has already collected a TUE after testing positive, EPO in his 1999 TdF B-samples (good enough for his EPO doping schedule to be determined), plenty of teammates and support staff reporting his using PEDs.
Prove it!
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on January 23, 2011, 06:22:18 pm
Got an hour to spare? Spend it on The Clinic - CyclingNews Forum (http://forum.cyclingnews.com/forumdisplay.php?f=20) and then ask me again.
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: LittleWheelsandBig on February 16, 2011, 12:40:46 pm
He isn't even the most tested cyclist, let alone the most tested athlete in history. Tie that up with payments to the UCI and conflicts of interest with the USADA and have a think about what might happen to any positive results. Armstrong has already collected a TUE after testing positive, EPO in his 1999 TdF B-samples (good enough for his EPO doping schedule to be determined), plenty of teammates and support staff reporting his using PEDs.
Prove it!

 So who is the most tested athlete..? - CyclingNews Forum (http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=9354&highlight=tested)
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: clifftaylor on February 16, 2011, 01:12:54 pm
I got bored reading that, so went straight to the swimsuit section  :P

Blimmin hell, some of those must be made of kevlar!!
Title: Re: Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong (again)
Post by: Hot Flatus on February 17, 2011, 08:45:05 am
Just had a little tot up. Looking at LA's last Tour win in 05, out of the 19 people behind him in the final GC, half of them were later busted for doping offences (or similar eg Rasmussen). Half of them!

I think it is safe to assume that their failed tests were not the result of a one-off attempt at doping, and therefore they had successfully eluded other tests. Perhaps it is safe to assume that the other half of the 05 GC includes some who remained lucky.