# Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong



## iLB (15 Jan 2011)

interview for Dutch television I think...

http://nos.nl/video/210777-lance-armstrong-gebruikte-doping.html


----------



## gaz (15 Jan 2011)

is it just me or does paul kimmage come across as a total arse in that piece? 
The woman in the green top talks some sense, at present it's just one word against another, there isn't any proof at the moment to say who is wrong and who is right.


----------



## Smokin Joe (15 Jan 2011)

gaz said:


> *is it just me or does paul kimmage come across as a total arse in that piece? *
> The woman in the green top talks some sense, at present it's just one word against another, there isn't any proof at the moment to say who is wrong and who is right.


No, he comes across as a true hero and I am pleased to share my nation of birth with him.

Anyone who still believes Armstrong was clean probably puts 20p under the pillow for the tooth fairy too. Armstrong has been a terrible influence on the sport, not only promoting the doping culture but doing his best to hound those who spoke against it out of the sport.

It is only people like Kimmage who keeps chipping away who have begun to turn the tide.


----------



## gaz (15 Jan 2011)

I have no problem with people fighting against people that dope, but the way he came across in this piece, especially at the end, just make me think he was an arse.


----------



## rich p (15 Jan 2011)

I have to disagree Gaz. I thought Kimmage spoke the truth robustly and with no fear of Armstrong's litigousness which has caused some of the omerta up till now. 

I applaud him for keeping on keeping on in the face of threats and bullying tactics. 

The woman in green says much the same without the honesty. She says she hopes that Lance is a hero who cleanly beat all the other doped cyclists but.......


----------



## raindog (15 Jan 2011)

Can't disagree with this



> *Armstrong’s potential positive test is less important than the accusations that the UCI colluded in protecting a high-profile rider*


----------



## Aperitif (15 Jan 2011)

I enjoyed that! Paul Kimmage for Prime Minister - let's get some balls back into the world. (No offence, Lancey baby).
However, whenever I hear 'that name', I always spare a thought for Beloki, and I always think of the skill level applied here. Cycling skill, and nothing to do with the other stuff. (Not trying to go OT either Andy...sorry  )
[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_8m5-sR6I4[/media]


----------



## rich p (15 Jan 2011)

raindog said:


> Can't disagree with this
> 
> *Armstrong’s potential positive test is less important than the accusations that the UCI colluded in protecting a high-profile rider*




That is just unsubstantiated mud-slinging and I'm surprised that you can't just accept that Lance gave the UCI $100,000 with no strings attached.


----------



## mickle (15 Jan 2011)

So bored of this. If LA is a fraud and guilty of doping where is the evidence? Either there is or there isn't evidence. If there is evidence then do him in a court of law - if there isn't then shut the f up. 

Paul Kimmage has a vested interest in stirring sh!t up because he wants to sell books. I'll believe it when/if they get a conviction, until then all this speculation achieves is yet more damage to the sport.


----------



## Smokin Joe (15 Jan 2011)

You need evidence to convict, and whether that comes about we'll have to see.

But you can form an opinion on the basis of probabilities, and as stated earlier I gave up believing in the Tooth Fairy long ago.


----------



## rich p (15 Jan 2011)

mickle said:


> So bored of this. If LA is a fraud and guilty of doping where is the evidence? Either there is or there isn't evidence. If there is evidence then do him in a court of law - if there isn't then shut the f up.
> 
> Paul Kimmage has a vested interest in stirring sh!t up because he wants to sell books. I'll believe it when/if they get a conviction, until then all this speculation achieves is yet more damage to the sport.




What a weird post!

If you're so bored then why on earth click onto a thread about it.  

Very few of the dopers, if any, end up in a law court. The usual punishment is a ban of varying length.

If some of us enjoy posting and speculating what business is it of yours? I must have missed the election which appointed you milk monitor. I slightly resent being told to shut the f*** up!

Kimmage has only written one book about cycling as far as I know and that was 20 odd years ago, so I doubt that stirring up sales is his motivation!


----------



## gaz (15 Jan 2011)

rich p said:


> The woman in green says much the same without the honesty. She says she hopes that Lance is a hero who cleanly beat all the other doped cyclists but.......


.... that would make him superhuman.


----------



## marzjennings (15 Jan 2011)

Don't see anything heroic in what Kimmage is saying, just another journalist trying to make a name for himself by making a few waves. Did Armstrong dope, maybe, but it's a problem that exists across cycling, professional to amateur, and to point out an individual as the 'cancer' is a bogus self promoting path.


----------



## addictfreak (15 Jan 2011)

Why do we look for heroes in cycling (and other sports), then when we find one we build them up. Then after a few years revel in seeing them destroyed.

I am an unashamed Lance fan, Im not in a position to know whether the allegations are true or not. I hope for all of us who enjoyed watching him win, that they are not.


----------



## rich p (15 Jan 2011)

That's absolutely 100% wrong as far as I'm concerned. I certainly don't revel in bringing him down.

I was inspired by Armstrong when I first took up cycling, I read his book and was so impressed by his tenacity and how he came back to be so strong.

Now, I've read all the evidence including the welter of circumstantial stuff and feel that he badly let me down. Feet of clay.


----------



## addictfreak (15 Jan 2011)

rich p said:


> That's absolutely 100% wrong as far as I'm concerned. *I certainly don't revel in bringing him down.
> 
> *I was inspired by Armstrong when I first took up cycling, I read his book and was so impressed by his tenacity and how he came back to be so strong.
> 
> Now, I've read all the evidence including the welter of circumstantial stuff and feel that he badly let me down. Feet of clay.



It was a general observation and not directed a anyone in particular.

As I said he may or may not be guilty. Im sure if I searched I could find enough evidence to in support of guilt and innocence.

Until its proved in a court of law, i will extended him the right of innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## rich p (15 Jan 2011)

addictfreak said:


> It was a general observation and not directed a anyone in particular.
> 
> As I said he may or may not be guilty. Im sure if I searched I could find enough evidence to in support of guilt and innocence.
> 
> Until its proved in a court of law, i will extended him the right of innocent until proven guilty.




AS I said earlier, AF, I can't think of any positive dope test that has ended in court! Although I may be wrong


----------



## addictfreak (15 Jan 2011)

rich p said:


> AS I said earlier, AF, I can't think of any positive dope test that has ended in court! Although I may be wrong




I think theres an issue in this case about government funding, thats why federal investigators are looking at it.

But I could also be wrong, would nt be the first time


----------



## Aperitif (15 Jan 2011)

It's interesting trying to form an opinion...


----------



## mickle (15 Jan 2011)

rich p said:


> What a weird post!
> 
> If you're so bored then why on earth click onto a thread about it.
> 
> ...



What a weird post yourself!

I participated in the discussion because I have an opinion.

Not 'LA is guilty' and not 'LA is not guilty' but 'The endless speculation about whether LA is guilty of doping is damaging to the sport'. And I'll hold that view until solid evidence is produced. 

I don't want him to be uncovered as a cheat. Not because I like him particularly but because it would cause immense damage to cycle sport. Immense damage. It would implode, and I, as a lifelong fan, would just be gutted.

It's ok not to like him, he's not a very likeable guy in my view, but this endless speculation has a whiff of anti-Americanism. 

I just think Kimmage should put up or shut up. 

In my opinion. 

Hope that's ok.


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Jan 2011)

Kimmage has provided an account, and it's coherent. It ties in with other accounts. Whether it's correct is another matter, and I doubt that any of us will ever know for sure. Whether any of us will ever know if Armstrong gained an advantage from doping, given the general condition of professional cycling is anybody's guess. I infer from things that David Millar has said that doping was general in some teams.

Although Kimmage has a job to do, and nobody can deny that he's doing it, his remarks about Armstrong getting lucky with cancer rather than beating it are ungenerous. My recollection of the book is that Armstrong was quite humble about his dealings with cancer, and claims no special power. He's extravagant (as well might all of us be) about the support given to him by a nurse, and by the oncologists, and by his first wife.


----------



## Aperitif (15 Jan 2011)

As Lance might muse 'Every day is a winding road...'


----------



## marzjennings (15 Jan 2011)

Aperitif said:


> As Lance might muse 'Every day is a winding road...'



Great, now I have that song in my head....


----------



## yello (15 Jan 2011)

mickle said:


> I don't want him to be uncovered as a cheat. Not because I like him particularly but because it would cause immense damage to cycle sport. Immense damage. It would implode, and I, as a lifelong fan, would just be gutted.




One shouldn't be afraid of damage.


What if there was systematic doping? Can you see how your opinion is omerta like? It's in the interests of cycling to end the speculation, that's for sure, but not to hide truths. There has to be 'truth and reconciliation' for people to know that cycling is safe with UCI. Clearly, there are people like Kimmage who doubt that.

I'm reminded of the story of how Pierre Ballister (I think it was he) fell out of love with cycling. It was when witnessing a TdF mountain stage finish. Ballister (or whoever it was) was amongst a number of journalists/followers that day that realised a different game was being played. Some of those people turned their backs on cycling from that day. Others have wanted their sport back since. Either way, they were probably gutted. 

I clearly have no idea whether Kimmage's opinions or Landis' allegations have any substance whatsoever but I don't think anyone should be afraid of them nor be prevented from speculating. Personally speaking, I think there's a case to answer.


----------



## Aperitif (15 Jan 2011)

marzjennings said:


> Great, now I have that song in my head....



It's on her latest EP (o dear)


----------



## Smokin Joe (15 Jan 2011)

Don't forget that Kimmage has been there, done that, and seen what goes on. He's not just another journo with a different angle, but someone who turned pro with high ideals and had them shattered by the realities of the sport. 

Incidentley, the number of people who have died in the last twenty years directly as a result of having used EPO is well into double figures, so covering it up and hoping no-one will notice is not an option.


----------



## adscrim (15 Jan 2011)

You would think from his statements that LA was responsible for all the doping that occurs in cycling - calling him 'the cancer' takes it a bit far. If LA was doping at the time, then he didn't get caught and I believe it should be left at that. If samples were available, should we be checking all of Merckx wins to see if he was clean for all of them?


----------



## rich p (15 Jan 2011)

adscrim said:


> You would think from his statements that LA was responsible for all the doping that occurs in cycling - calling him 'the cancer' takes it a bit far. If LA was doping at the time, then he didn't get caught and I believe it should be left at that. If samples were available, should we be checking all of Merckx wins to see if he was clean for all of them?




You seem to have overlooked that Armstrong is still racing!


----------



## iAmiAdam (15 Jan 2011)

So, we've established something that we all truly knew he was doing anyway?


----------



## adscrim (15 Jan 2011)

rich p said:


> You seem to have overlooked that Armstrong is still racing!




And so still being tested and I assume still providing clean samples. Why does that fact he's still racing change how we should view past events? 

I should add that I'm no particular fan of LA. Whether the current action comes to anything, he will always be guilty be association anyway. However, he did win 7 tours. Either he won those doped up while racing doped cyclists or he won them clean while racing doped cyclists. Whichever it was, I still think it's pretty impressive. I would prefer it (vastly) if I knew that the winners in a sport which I enjoy watching and participating in were clean, but I know that there will always be those who recognise they're not as good as the guy they're drafting and will do something to counter that. It's a shame but that's what doping controls are for.


----------



## Paul_L (16 Jan 2011)

Kimmage's book was the first cycling book i ever read and i read it without knowing anything about him or his previous carreer.

Since then i have held him in high regard and believe he operates with integrity and a bloody minded determination to "out" doping within the sport of cycling which he clearly loves.

Clearly there is mounting evidence that needs answering and fair play to Kimmage for not letting it go.

BUT i find his analogy with cancer to be very uncomfortable indeed. PK gets quite emotional when referring to LA beating cancer as just luck. I've never heard LA claimed anything to the contrary.


----------



## raindog (16 Jan 2011)

Good post Paul, and I agree with every word. Calling LA the cancer in the sport is at best in bad taste and at worst stupid and deliberately inflammatory. Cheating and drug taking existed long before LA's time and will probably exist long after he's left the sport. But I don't think Kimmage has ever said Armstrong says he beat cancer, I think he's referring to other people who've said that.

It always p sses me off when people refer to Armstrong as the best cyclist ever, as someone in that video does, as if Merckx, Coppi, Anquetil, Bartali etc never existed - LA wasn't fit to shine those guy's shoes imo.


----------



## rich p (16 Jan 2011)

mickle said:


> What a weird post yourself!
> 
> I participated in the discussion because I have an opinion.
> 
> Hope that's ok.




O f course - the more the merrier!

I was simply referring to your first post where you said that everyone should shut the f*** up. Not to worry, the discussion sems to have carried on anyway!

One of the things that always strikes me in these sort of threads is that it is assumed that some of us are anti-Armstrong or even, as was suggested, anti-American. In truth we were just as keen to nail Ullrich, Rasmussen, Kohl, Sinkewitz, Basso, Ricco et al. Perhaps we're all xenophobes


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Jan 2011)

The problem is simple - evidence

Until someone comes up with some hard evidence then this will always be playground squabbling with everyone using the situation to promote themselves and take advantage.


----------



## Smokin Joe (16 Jan 2011)

Cunobelin said:


> The problem is simple - evidence
> 
> Until someone comes up with some hard evidence then this will always be playground squabbling with everyone using the situation to promote themselves and take advantage.


Ah, but they have come up with evidence that Armstrong doped. His '99 Tour samples were tested using modern techniques not available then and were found to contain EPO.

Quite rightly he couldn't be sanctioned against because the tests were outside the time limit and the B sample had been long since destroyed, but...


----------



## Crackle (16 Jan 2011)

I have to say Mickle, you've expressed yourself rather simplistically and the sport is in danger of collapse not because they catch the cheats but because they don't or people largely suspect they don't.


----------



## Paul_L (16 Jan 2011)

raindog said:


> Good post Paul, and I agree with every word. Calling LA the cancer in the sport is at best in bad taste and at worst stupid and deliberately inflammatory. Cheating and drug taking existed long before LA's time and will probably exist long after he's left the sport. *But I don't think Kimmage has ever said Armstrong says he beat cancer, I think he's referring to other people who've said that*.
> 
> It always p sses me off when people refer to Armstrong as the best cyclist ever, as someone in that video does, as if Merckx, Coppi, Anquetil, Bartali etc never existed - LA wasn't fit to shine those guy's shoes imo.



to be fair if you're a cancer survivor whether it be down to luck, medicine and treatment, devine intervention or the bloody tooth fairy i think you've every right to say you've beaten cancer and to play a silly war of words on that is quite wrong.

I'm no Armstrong fan, and have always thought the bloke to be a nasty piece of work, but to pick up on his attitude towards once having had cancer is not cricket.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jan 2011)

I think Kimmage is right up until the point where he starts to use cancer analogies. Then it just starts to get nasty.


----------



## Smokin Joe (16 Jan 2011)

Flying_Monkey said:


> I think Kimmage is right up until the point where he starts to use cancer analogies. Then it just starts to get nasty.


That depends whether describing Armstrong as a cancer on the sport is just a general analogy or a personal dig at the man himself. If it was it was the latter it was certainly a bit nasty, but entirely in keeping with the insults Kimmage himself has had to put up with not only from Lance but many others in the sport who had an interest in keeping the truth hidden from public view.


----------



## e-rider (16 Jan 2011)

+1 for Kimmage


----------



## raindog (16 Jan 2011)

Paul_L said:


> to be fair if you're a cancer survivor whether it be down to luck, medicine and treatment, devine intervention or the bloody tooth fairy i think you've every right to say you've beaten cancer and to play a silly war of words on that is quite wrong.
> 
> I'm no Armstrong fan, and have always thought the bloke to be a nasty piece of work, but to pick up on his attitude towards once having had cancer is not cricket.


I think there might be some confusion - I was agreeing with you.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jan 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> That depends whether describing Armstrong as a cancer on the sport is just a general analogy or a personal dig at the man himself. If it was it was the latter it was certainly a bit nasty, but entirely in keeping with the insults Kimmage himself has had to put up with not only from Lance but many others in the sport who had an interest in keeping the truth hidden from public view.



I don't think you can use a cancer analogy where Lance is concerned without it being personal and nasty. The same way as if you accused a double amputee as 'not having a leg to stand on.' And sure, Kimmage has been insulted - he's put up with a lot - but that doesn't give him _carte blanche_ to insult other people.


----------



## ufkacbln (16 Jan 2011)

Smokin Joe said:


> Ah, but they have come up with evidence that Armstrong doped. His '99 Tour samples were tested using modern techniques not available then and were found to contain EPO.
> 
> Quite rightly he couldn't be sanctioned against because the tests were outside the time limit and the B sample had been long since destroyed, but...



To continue from the but..............the tests themselves were proven to be unreliable.

There was a validation of this EPO test by the Catholic University of Leuven in Belgium 



> “this test can occasionally lead to the
> false-positive detection of EPO in postexercise, protein-rich
> urine.” Any athlete can have a false positive test with this
> procedure. Most people with healthy kidneys do not spill protein
> ...



The test may be correct and the evidence sound, but unless 80% of Boston's runners are on EPO there is some doubt!

Simply not sufficient to stand up legally which again is the problem.


----------



## yello (16 Jan 2011)

Now perhaps oddly, I don't find the cancer analogy offensive or the like at all - only misjudged. It gets used often enough as a metaphor to be quite acceptable. I think Kimmage is quite deliberate using the metaphor, not to cause offense but as some kind of ironic counter to Armstrong's cancer awareness evangelism (NOT my opinion btw, but one I've read often enough to know exists).

My opinion is that it is misjudged because it gives Armstrong a perfectly understandable opportunity to deflect and avoid answering the real question. Kimmage would, imho, be better served staying factual and avoiding the emotional.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (16 Jan 2011)

yello said:


> My opinion is that it is misjudged because it gives Armstrong a perfectly understandable opportunity to deflect and avoid answering the real question. Kimmage would, imho, be better served staying factual and avoiding the emotional.



Absolutely.


----------



## Smokin Joe (16 Jan 2011)

Armstrong has spent the past decade deflecting and avoiding the real question, however it was asked. He might find it a bit more difficult when it is Federal Agents doing the asking, however.


----------



## iAmiAdam (16 Jan 2011)

I didn't find the cancer analogy offensive, but many will think he meant it in this way.

But I feel that if he didn't use it, his argument would be even stronger than it is now.


----------



## oldroadman (17 Jan 2011)

Kimmage is a fair journalist. But he is bitter. Maybe not just the LA thing, but with the sport. Probably he should not have turned pro, bacause looking back, he didn't quite have it, and was almost always "fat" in sport terms. All his cycling related work, the continuous battering about Armstrong, are pat of his attack on the sport. It's very sad that he feels this way and is able to get the vitriol publicly exposed. Maybe is he turned his focus on substance abuse in ALL sport, it would have more validity. There's plenty goes on in some very big money sports, and very few positives - which makes you wonder why, because there is too much to lose?
Then of course he admits (in "A Rough Ride") that he used amphets., and we get the whole conscience thing. Sorry I find that hard to accept.
I do wish he would turn his attention to being a bit more constructive, but whilst he makes a living from running the LA/doping theme, he's hardly going to turn off the money tap, is he? And inthe meantime do his one man best to destroy a sport which gives a lot of people a living (not just the riders). Well done, PK. Not.


----------



## MacB (17 Jan 2011)

Yes, Kimmage is bitter and yes the 'cancer' jibe was ill conceived but it's hardly surprising, it may even be sinking in for him that, even if LA himself said he doped, there'd still be people that believed he raced clean.

The stats in the link Aperitif provided makes very interesting reading. They've gone to the trouble of calculating power outputs required for given performances. The differences between now and the known 'doping' period is huge and there can be only two possible conclusions:-

1. LA doped
2. LA is a freak of nature and was able to out perform all other pros even with their substance advantages

I think I now better understand why there always used to be reference to Indurains 'amazing' lung capacity.


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Jan 2011)

oldroadman said:


> I do wish he would turn his attention to being a bit more constructive, but whilst he makes a living from running the LA/doping theme, he's hardly going to turn off the money tap, is he? And inthe meantime do his one man best to destroy a sport which gives a lot of people a living (not just the riders). Well done, PK. Not.


I accept a lot of the criticism of Kimmage, but this is a bit unfair. If the sport is destroyed (and, by sport I suppose you mean professional cycling) then it will be because sponsors walk away from it because cycling tarnishes their image rather than brightening it. And that, surely, will be down to the UCI not seeing beyond next month's cheque, and teams like Astana behaving badly.


----------



## Smokin Joe (17 Jan 2011)

Kimmage was a very talented amateur, a better rider than Martin Early who went on to have a long and distinguished career as a domestique. It wasn't a case of not him having the talent to survive as a pro, but rather becoming disillusioned at what he saw going on in the pro ranks that lead to him losing his enthusiasm.

He took amphets a few times, but that was in order to survive the gruelling criterium circuit that was obligatory back then in order to earn a living. His realisation that it would not be possible to do that without stimulants made him give up (Rik Van Looy once rode 48 races in 42 days immediately after the Tour de France, with all night drive in between to get to the next venue). He focus's on cycling because that is the sport he understands, but he has not been afraid to write about the use of dope in other sports either.

Whatever you feel about him, it is only because of the efforts of a very few people that we are now in a position where something is being done to combat the abuse. Most were quite happy to bury their heads in the sand, even during the early nineties when riders were dying in their sleep because their blood was like treacle.


----------



## As Easy As Riding A Bike (17 Jan 2011)

oldroadman said:


> I do wish he would turn his attention to being a bit more constructive, but whilst he makes a living from running the LA/doping theme, he's hardly going to turn off the money tap, is he? And inthe meantime do his one man best to destroy a sport which gives a lot of people a living (not just the riders). Well done, PK. Not.



If Kimmage was that concerned about "making money" from LA, you would have thought he would have put a book out.

He hasn't. 

Not really buying that as his motivation here.


----------

