# Lets be friends - best friends



## Bollo (13 Feb 2009)

Came upon this interview on velonews today.

Kimmage vs Armstrong - what could go wrong? Find a sofa to hide behind while you watch it and apologies if it's already been put up.

http://velonews.tv/?articleID=2591


----------



## John the Monkey (13 Feb 2009)

Any of the press pack quiz him about his supposedly extensive "imperative" anti-doping programme with Dr. Caitlin being dropped after one bloody sample was taken?

Armstrong misses the point about Millar *again* not that he was caught and confessed, but that he's now a positive force in the sport. Basso is only back because his team pulled out of an agreement among pro-tour teams to double the penalties given to dopers. Landis "doesn't feel like he's guilty". 

Reminds me slightly of the Pro-Cycling readers' questions issue (Feb 2009) in which he seemed to threaten to blacklist the magazine.


----------



## Crackle (13 Feb 2009)

Now first important question. Is it Caitlin or Catlin?

I think Kimmage deserved that. 

JTM is spot on though. Can these guys really not see how the world views their machinations?


----------



## John the Monkey (13 Feb 2009)

Crackle said:


> I think Kimmage deserved that.


I think Kimmage's description was out of order - but that doesn't mean he can't ask a question that Mr. Armstrong continually seems to misconstrue and expect an answer. Kimmage also deserves a bit of respect for what he went through - he blew the whistle back when it really was a case of "shut up if you know what's good for you". Commentary elsewhere so far seems to be applauding Lance for the "smackdown" and ignoring the question asked. 

Until the rest of the cycling press ups it's own testosterone level a bit, it seems like Kimmage is the only person who is asking, too.

Incidentally, if you've seen it as "Catlin" elsewhere, it'll be me that's wrong.


----------



## Smokin Joe (13 Feb 2009)

I liked Kimmages comment, "You don't have the patent on cancer".

Kimmage takes a lot of flack, but he has been there and seen at first hand what goes on. Too many people in the sport would like to pretend that doping doesn't exist, but it does and the public are getting fed up with it.


----------



## maurice (13 Feb 2009)

Lance held himself pretty well there, definitely made Kimmage look bad.

I'm not sure of the whole importance of his Landis viewpoint. I respect Lance more for not putting the boot into an friend/ex-colleague while he's down, and not doing it just to satisfy the press. He's said Landis made a mistake, I think it's enough.

If Landis admitted it now and came back to the European tours as a Millar-like anti doping force would he be viewed in the same regard as Millar? I don't think so, different era to be caught in. (and Millar was never as good)


----------



## Crackle (13 Feb 2009)

Hmmm, I'm not sure if Kimmage deserves any respect. True, he blew the whistle but out of any nobility for the sport, I doubt. Rather more, due to his own inadequacies as a person and a cyclist. You can't go around making analogies of cancer and then expect to get your questions answered, especially when you're questions and angle is loaded. It'll take a more subtle approach than his to get some objectivity into this.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Feb 2009)

Crackle said:


> Now first important question. Is it Caitlin or Catlin?
> 
> I think Kimmage deserved that.
> 
> JTM is spot on though. *Can these guys really not see how the world views their machinations?*


Slightly tangential I know, but...
I work in an area that has associations with PR and the press. I'm no expert, but you start to pick out how a publicity strategy has been developed and is being used and Team LA are _damn_ good. The way that Team LA's association with Don Caitlin was declared to be over coincided very neatly with the publication of the Damsgard testing. A theoretical set of high value test data was never even gathered (despite promises) but Presto! a much lower value set of data appears to replace it. Think of Indiana Jones swapping a gold statue for a bag of sand. Except that there will be no boulder threatening to crush Team LA because cycling just doesn't work that way and once you've got away with it, you've got away with it. 

Didn't watch the clip. There's no sofa here in the kitchen and I hate that kind of cringy stuff...


----------



## Chuffy (13 Feb 2009)

Crackle said:


> Hmmm, I'm not sure if Kimmage deserves any respect. True, he blew the whistle but out of any nobility for the sport, I doubt. *Rather more, due to his own inadequacies as a person and a cyclist.* You can't go around making analogies of cancer and then expect to get your questions answered, especially when you're questions and angle is loaded. It'll take a more subtle approach than his to get some objectivity into this.


Probably true. Rough Ride doesn't paint a pretty picture of the author, he's more brutal on himself than he is on anyone else. You can call it self pity, or bitterness, or whatever, but I admire him for being more cruelly honest with himself than most of us would ever dare to be.

To be honest, Kimmage in a press conference with Team La is never going to be anything other than a bearpit. It certainly isn't going to get any answers. So Team LA is getting kudos for the smackdown? Big surprise, plenty of people want to be on the side of the alpha-dog and Kimmage isn't the most sympathetic of people. But it's a shame that the rest of the press pack is gutless enough to suck up to Team LA and not risk being kept away from the biggest team.


----------



## Renard (13 Feb 2009)

Chuffy said:


> But it's a shame that the rest of the press pack is gutless enough to suck up to Team LA and not risk being kept away from the biggest team.



That is one of the main things you take from Jeremy Whittle's book.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Feb 2009)

ivancarlos said:


> Has anyone read this book?
> 
> http://living.scotsman.com/bookreviews/Book-review-Bad-Blood-The.4231588.jp
> 
> It gives an insight into just how zealous Paul Kimmage's stance against doping is.


Yup, I've got it. It might make it into the CC Floating Library pretty soon actually. Kimmage is an angry, angry man and hard to love, but I wish that the rest of the press corp had a fraction of what drives him.


----------



## Noodley (13 Feb 2009)

Chuffy said:


> Didn't watch the clip. There's no sofa here in the kitchen and I hate that kind of cringy stuff...



I do have a sofa in my livingroom but still did not watch the clip. For the same reason.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Feb 2009)

Noodley said:


> I do have a sofa in my livingroom but still did not watch the clip. For the same reason.


Get your granny to watch it and report back. She's harder than both of us.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Feb 2009)

Noodley said:


> I do have a sofa in my livingroom but still did not watch the clip. For the same reason.


Oh and I did like the ad beforehand with Greg Lemond doing a spot of fundraising for diabetes. He's only doing it because he's jealous of what Team LA is doing for cancer you know...


----------



## Crackle (13 Feb 2009)

Chuffy said:


> Probably true. Rough Ride doesn't paint a pretty picture of the author, he's more brutal on himself than he is on anyone else. You can call it self pity, or bitterness, or whatever, but I admire him for being more cruelly honest with himself than most of us would ever dare to be.



Undoubtedly this is true but it doesn't make him the best person to carry the fight forward, in fact it risks further damage to the anti-doping campaign.

You're analysis of the LA press machine is good though, they are very good at staying on side, a bit too good.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Feb 2009)

Crackle said:


> Undoubtedly this is true but it doesn't make him the best person to carry the fight forward, in fact it risks further damage to the anti-doping campaign.


I think you're right and I've said before that Walsh has picked on the wrong target when he keeps on going after Team LA. It's just too big for one or two terriers to take down. I think Kimmage and Walsh would do better to investigate other teams, other riders and dig into the dodgy practices that still go on. I think that would have a greater impact on the culture within the sport (and the way it's covered) and _that_ might ultimately bring Team LA to book. Focusing on Team LA makes them easy to dismiss as cranks with a personal grudge. _I_ don't think that, but it's perception in the wider world that counts...


----------



## Chuffy (13 Feb 2009)

ivancarlos said:


> It saddens me but I don't think LA does himself any favours in the clip. To me what he says is nothing more than deflection.


Just read some of the exchanges on Cycling News. What an peanut. And no, I don't mean Kimmage.


----------



## Crackle (13 Feb 2009)

Chuffy said:


> I think you're right and I've said before that Walsh has picked on the wrong target when he keeps on going after Team LA. It's just too big for one or two terriers to take down. I think Kimmage and Walsh would do better to investigate other teams, other riders and dig into the dodgy practices that still go on. I think that would have a greater impact on the culture within the sport (and the way it's covered) and _that_ might ultimately bring Team LA to book. Focusing on Team LA makes them easy to dismiss as cranks with a personal grudge. _I_ don't think that, but it's perception in the wider world that counts...



I'd agree with that, with the proviso that both Walsh and Kimmage are fighting their own demons too much. They may both ultimately be proved right but it wil be another source that finally makes the breakthrough.


----------



## Noodley (13 Feb 2009)

Chuffy said:


> It's just too big for one or two terriers to take down...



Okay, what if I were to add my considerable weight to the fight? 


<Team Lance> Blackberry alert: that mardy twat is at it again <Team Lance>


----------



## Chuffy (13 Feb 2009)

Noodley said:


> Okay, what if I were to add my considerable weight to the fight?
> 
> 
> <Team Lance> Blackberry alert: that mardy twat is at it again <Team Lance>


Johann, JOHANN! I _told_ you, get that horrid poodle _out_ of the room!


----------



## mondobongo (13 Feb 2009)

Not a very subtle approach by Kimmage but then again he does not really do subtle, when he went after Millar he went for him like a dog with a bone.
Whilst L'Americano's response is slick its not hard to pick up on the attempt to totally discredit Kimmage as a journo, he may well have hit that nerve and may have some tough times ahead in getting access to other riders.
I score it as a draw L'Americano does not come out looking good. 

Chuffy Noodley worth watching the vid just to gauge the rattling of L'Americano.


----------



## Dave5N (13 Feb 2009)

Bollo said:


> Came upon this interview on velonews today.
> 
> Kimmage vs Armstrong - what could go wrong? Find a sofa to hide behind while you watch it and apologies if it's already been put up.
> 
> http://velonews.tv/?articleID=2591



I'm no Armstrong fan, as regular readers will know. His defence in that clip is shaky bordering on incompetent.

I used to, (and I'm sure I've said it here a few times) think Kimmage was an arse.

My opinion now is that he has now moved forward at last.







Kimmage isn't an arse. He's a c%*t.

There we are.

As you were boys.


----------



## John the Monkey (13 Feb 2009)

maurice said:


> I'm not sure of the whole importance of his Landis viewpoint. I respect Lance more for not putting the boot into an friend/ex-colleague while he's down, and not doing it just to satisfy the press. He's said Landis made a mistake, I think it's enough.


No.

What Lance said was that Landis had served his ban and should be allowed back to ride. I agree - and Landis didn't have a Pro-Tour team break it's own promises the way Liquigas had to to snap up Basso. 

What Lance then went on to say was along the lines of "not understanding" why some fans would cheer Millar and not Landis and Basso, effectively saying the situations are equivalent, and the fans are hypocrites. In that HE IS WRONG. (Imo, but a strongly held o in this case).

Kimmage's likening of Armstrong's return to a cancer coming out of remission is out of order. But his question at the PC was a valid one, and god help us, no other bugger is asking it, even now. No one's asking why Armstrong's "imperative" testing regime only managed to get one sample out of him (according to Catlin). No one was asking where the pre-competition baseline results were prior to the TDU.


----------



## Noodley (13 Feb 2009)

I liked Kimmage's book and hoped he could move on. But he has been stuck for years. He persists with the same line, cannot appreciate how his dogged unswerving 'rightness' does nothing to forward the anti-doping cause and does not appreciate that influencing people involves considerably more than jumping up and down. It requires finesse; something he does not possess.

However, I do not 'get' the "he's bitter cos he did not have the talent" line - he did have talent. Quite a lot of it. I can see why he was bitter, but being bitter for such a long time is not healthy.


----------



## Chuffy (13 Feb 2009)

Noodley said:


> I liked Kimmage's book and hoped he could move on. But he has been stuck for years. He persists with the same line, cannot appreciate how his dogged unswerving 'rightness' does nothing to forward the anti-doping cause and does not appreciate that influencing people involves considerably more than jumping up and down. It requires finesse; something he does not possess.
> 
> However, I do not 'get' the "he's bitter cos he did not have the talent" line - he did have talent. Quite a lot of it. I can see why he was bitter, but being bitter for such a long time is not healthy.


You could compare Kimmage's obsession with Team LA's attitude to tackling cancer. Two sides of the same coin imho. It's something that dominates their lives and that they can't ever get away from.


----------



## Dave5N (13 Feb 2009)

Noodley said:


> I liked Kimmage's book and hoped he could move on. But he has been stuck for years. He persists with the same line, cannot appreciate how his dogged unswerving 'rightness' does nothing to forward the anti-doping cause and does not appreciate that influencing people involves considerably more than jumping up and down. It requires finesse; something he does not possess.
> 
> However, I do not 'get' the "he's bitter cos he did not have the talent" line - he did have talent. Quite a lot of it. I can see why he was bitter, but being bitter for such a long time *is not healthy*.



It's all he has to make him wealthy.


----------



## Dave5N (13 Feb 2009)

Chuffy said:


> You could compare Kimmage's obsession with Team LA's attitude to tackling cancer. Two sides of the same coin imho. It's something that dominates their lives and that they can't ever get away from.



I'm not a Lance fan (feck me, the 'kin cock'll crow soon) but he isn't a kimmage.


----------



## Noodley (14 Feb 2009)

Dave5N said:


> It's all he has to make him wealthy.



I reckon if he'd been a bit smarter about how he approached it he would be a great deal more wealthy and more respected than he is.


----------



## Dave5N (14 Feb 2009)

Noodley said:


> I reckon if he'd been a bit smarter about how he approached it he would be a great deal more wealthy and more respected than he is.



Yep. You're right. Not just a c*nt. A thick cu*t to boot.


----------



## maurice (14 Feb 2009)

John the Monkey said:


> What Lance then went on to say was along the lines of "not understanding" why some fans would cheer Millar and not Landis and Basso, effectively saying the situations are equivalent, and the fans are hypocrites. In that HE IS WRONG. (Imo, but a strongly held o in this case).



Just did some reading up on Millar, seems he appealed to have his ban reduced to only 12 months.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/3646322.stm

With that kind of attitude it sounds like he would have done a Landis-style full denial if he had any chance of getting away with it to me. (and took a little encouragement to fully admit it in the first place.)

Damage limitation me-thinks, that different to Landis?


----------



## Noodley (14 Feb 2009)

maurice said:


> Just did some reading up on Millar...
> Damage limitation me-thinks, that different to Landis?



You need to do a bit more reading.


----------



## maurice (14 Feb 2009)

No I don't, I need to go to bed, race this weekend


----------



## Noodley (14 Feb 2009)

maurice said:


> No I don't, I need to go to bed, race this weekend



Race in February? Bloody hell you're keen! You're not riding in California are you?


----------



## Dave5N (14 Feb 2009)

Not much in the calendar, but a few.

'Cross for those lucky, luck londonerrrs. http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/site/BC/eve/eventsfuture.asp


Nice to see they've taken Redditch off and stowed it up north out of harm's way.


----------



## maurice (14 Feb 2009)

*cough* Cross country MTB *cough*


----------



## Dave5N (14 Feb 2009)

Good luck!


----------



## Chuffy (14 Feb 2009)

The exit is just over there --->


----------



## Noodley (14 Feb 2009)

maurice said:


> *cough* Cross country MTB *cough*



Oh right, not _proper_ cycling 

Hope it went well anyway


----------



## Dave5N (14 Feb 2009)

Chuffy said:


> The exit is just over there --->



Who? Me?

What I done now?


----------



## Chuffy (14 Feb 2009)

Dave5N said:


> Who? Me?
> 
> What I done now?


I was referring to our muddy friend, but don't let me stop you...


----------



## Dave5N (14 Feb 2009)

Phew. Thanks.

For a moment there I was teetering on the edge of a speculative apology.

I need to sit down for a while now.


**wipes brow**


----------



## Dave5N (14 Feb 2009)

Anyway. We were discussing Kimmage.


----------



## Smokin Joe (14 Feb 2009)

Dave5N said:


> Anyway. We were discussing Kimmage.


Sounds like a Greek dish with lots of funny green things in it.


----------



## Crackle (14 Feb 2009)

Dave5N said:


> Anyway. We were discussing Kimmage.




I thought we were dissin' Kimmage


----------



## Dave5N (14 Feb 2009)

Crackle said:


> I thought we were dissin' Kimmage



Same thing innit?


----------



## maurice (14 Feb 2009)

Dave5N said:


> Good luck!



Thanks! & @ noodley

It's actually Sunday, today is just easy-going prep.The weather hasn't exactly been conducive to training recently, (the race was snowed off from last week) but the rest of the field are in the same boat so can't complain.



Chuffy said:


> The exit is just over there --->



No peleton to hide behind in XC, the best man wins rather than whose got the most friends


----------



## Noodley (14 Feb 2009)

maurice said:


> ...but *the rest of the field are in the same boat* so can't complain.



So, you all cycle round a boat? What kind of sport is that?


----------



## maurice (14 Feb 2009)

You never seen this kind of race before? Must live a sheltered life, let Lance go and open your eyes to the world


----------



## Dave5N (14 Feb 2009)

Pedalo racing?


----------



## Dave5N (14 Feb 2009)

Damn your eyes, Maurice, you beat me to it.


----------



## Noodley (14 Feb 2009)

maurice said:


> ...let Lance go and open your eyes to the world



Well, he thinks he can walk on water so he could just as well cycle on it.


----------



## wafflycat (15 Feb 2009)

Chuffy said:


> Probably true. Rough Ride doesn't paint a pretty picture of the author, he's more brutal on himself than he is on anyone else. You can call it self pity, or bitterness, or whatever, but I admire him for being more cruelly honest with himself than most of us would ever dare to be.
> 
> To be honest, Kimmage in a press conference with Team La is never going to be anything other than a bearpit. It certainly isn't going to get any answers. So Team LA is getting kudos for the smackdown? Big surprise, plenty of people want to be on the side of the alpha-dog and Kimmage isn't the most sympathetic of people. But it's a shame that the rest of the press pack is gutless enough to suck up to Team LA and not risk being kept away from the biggest team.



Yup Kimmage may well be a difficult person to like, but at least he keeps hammering away at trying to expose the culture of doping and the entire hypocracy surrounding it.


----------



## yenrod (15 Feb 2009)

Paul Kimmage got carrried away on that one..i can see his frustration. He rode when pro's where basically hard-bastards.

He was quite the 1st TO spit 'on the soup'.

And got ignored big time but the world needs people like that to do that...he needs credit, yet saying - the 'cancers back' ie LA is quite heavy.

The look on G. Hincapie sums it up really.

Everyones for LA at the moment and he definately handles himself VERY VERY well.

He, simply for the life of him and whatever he can talk his way around cannot get rid of the suspition.

I'm sure he would - like to.


----------



## Bollo (15 Feb 2009)

yenrod said:


> Paul Kimmage got carrried away on that one..i can see his frustration. He rode when pro's where basically hard-bastards.
> 
> He was quite the 1st TO spit 'on the soup'.
> 
> ...



Wow - I bung a rare post into racing and look what happens. Well, here's my 0.02 Euros....

Kimmage doesn't so much spit in the soup as take a dump in it, stir it with his manhood and then sell the rights to dump toxic waste in it to the mafia.

He's a very angry man because he feels betrayed by a sport that he started out believing was largely fair, noble and worthy but turned out to be somewhat otherwise. Is that his fault? - Yes because he comes across as stunningly naive when be turned pro in Rough Ride and no, because that's what we're all told about sport - human endevour and all that, right?

When it comes to putting across his point that pro cycling is filthy he has, to borrow a phrase from Sunday morning park football, "the touch of a rapist". Despite that, I really admire the guy - no one could accuse him of hypocrisy.

As for Mellow Johnny, I am not a fan for all the usual reasons. As for this latest spat, I don't like the way he's intimately woven his professional career, from which he will continue to gain exposure and make money, with a good cause. It allows him to frame criticism of HIM as criticism of HIS CAUSE.


----------



## Dave_1 (18 Feb 2009)

kimmage is right to ask the questions and confront lance...but many in Cali will be clean and while it is right that kimmage covers that with an article...on Lance , Basso, tyler, Landis...I ask you will we see kimmage write a non doping article to balance that one...cause many riders will be clean at Cali and Kimmage i fear will not write a balancing story...so in this respect, how can we support Kimmage? kimmage must have two seperate articles on cali or he is kicking everyone in the teeth


----------



## John the Monkey (18 Feb 2009)

Dave_1 said:


> kimmage must have two seperate articles on cali or he is kicking everyone in the teeth


Forgive me, but...

This makes no sense at all - does every article not mentioning dopage have to have its counter-part lambasting (f'r example) Leakygas for signing Basso (who should not have had a pro-tour ride for another two years, as remarked previously). Or pulling Mr. Armstrong up for equating the situations of D. Millar with F. Landis and I. Basso...?


----------



## Dave_1 (19 Feb 2009)

John the Monkey said:


> Forgive me, but...
> 
> This makes no sense at all - does every article not mentioning dopage have to have its counter-part lambasting (f'r example) Leakygas for signing Basso (who should not have had a pro-tour ride for another two years, as remarked previously). Or pulling Mr. Armstrong up for equating the situations of D. Millar with F. Landis and I. Basso...?



POI makes no sense?

presumption of innocence means Kimmage has to give some of the cali riders the benefit of the doubt by not writing about them as dopers I feel collectively...why should he only go there to report on dope when many have a different story to tell? If he cares about cycling he can write a few stories, ...but I suspect we'll only see one


----------



## John the Monkey (19 Feb 2009)

Dave_1 said:


> POI makes no sense?


What you wrote was;



> I ask you will we see kimmage write a non doping article to balance that one...cause many riders will be clean at Cali and Kimmage i fear will not write a balancing story...so in this respect, how can we support Kimmage? kimmage must have two seperate articles on cali or he is kicking everyone in the teeth



It seems to say that you can't take Kimmage seriously unless he writes pieces ignoring the spectre of doping that hangs over the sport.

Plenty of people will be writing jolly "Aren't things all lovely, let's watch the race" and not "balancing" that by writing that Basso should not have a pro-tour ride. They won't be writing that maybe Armstrong shouldn't be allowed to just blow off the promises he made before starting his comeback season unchallenged.



> ...why should he only go there to report on dope when many have a different story to tell? If he cares about cycling he can write a few stories, ...but I suspect we'll only see one


Why shouldn't he? Plenty of people are telling the other story, and only the other story, after all.


----------



## John the Monkey (19 Feb 2009)

Kimmage interviewed post press-conference;


View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Ai6t6R1_w


----------



## Bollo (20 Feb 2009)

Thanks for that. Interesting what he said about Millar because I'd always got the impression that was unconvinced by Millar's born-again anti-doping stance.


----------



## Chuffy (20 Feb 2009)

Bollo said:


> Thanks for that. Interesting what he said about Millar because I'd always got the impression that was unconvinced by Millar's born-again anti-doping stance.


I think he was convinced by the whole Slipstream/Garmin setup (he did a piece on it last year iirc) and has had to cut Millar some slack based on that. Before then he was pretty unpleasant about Millar and very sceptical (see his take on Millar's reaction to Vinokourov being busted mid Tour in 07). I'd Google for the link but I don't have time at the moment.


----------



## kennykool (20 Feb 2009)

Interesting - thanks for that. Very valid point about Hamilton Landis Etc.

Still cant really see what his beef is with Lance however! fair enough the UCI let Lance back early but come on......it's Lance!


----------



## wafflycat (20 Feb 2009)

Lance is not a god to be worshipped and have his arse kissed. Really.


----------



## kennykool (20 Feb 2009)

I would never compare Lance to God......More like Jesus!!!

So is he giving Lance grief at a press conference just to show he is gonna be different and NOT kiss Lance's ass?

I think Lance's comeback to Kimmage was brilliant - i hope he felt about that size (using index finger and thumb for effect)


----------



## wafflycat (20 Feb 2009)

kennykool said:


> I would never compare Lance to God......More like Jesus!!!



oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...


----------



## rich p (20 Feb 2009)

kennykool said:


> I would never compare Lance to God......More like Jesus!!!
> )



The second coming?

Should be on a (Spesh) Cross?

Worshipped by deluded masses?


----------



## kennykool (20 Feb 2009)

Deluded but happy Rich....the way I like it. So much bad stuff going on in the world you cant take it all serious....especially not a sport.

I've got more important things to be concerned about than whether or not some sportaman has or hasn't taken drugs - or when is the next time he'll be tested and why cant i understand the test....codswallop the lot of it.

Everything is rose tinted in my world - keeps me sane!

Enjoy the racing thats all i ask!


----------



## rich p (20 Feb 2009)

kennykool said:


> Deluded but happy Rich....the way I like it. So much bad stuff going on in the world you cant take it all serious....especially not a sport.
> 
> I've got more important things to be concerned about than whether or not some sportaman has or hasn't taken drugs - or when is the next time he'll be tested and why cant i understand the test....codswallop the lot of it.
> 
> ...



Nice one, Kenny!
Each to his own. I'm only happy when I'm moaning!


----------



## John the Monkey (20 Feb 2009)

kennykool said:


> So is he giving Lance grief at a press conference just to show he is gonna be different and NOT kiss Lance's ass?


The point isn't to give Mr. Armstrong stick as an end in itself. 

The thing is, Mr. Armstrong has questions to answer - look at the "Quiz" threads regarding his (now, apparently) non existent independent, imperative, transparent anti-doping programme. Look at the answers he gave about the programme before the announcement was made that he and Dr. Catlin were parting ways. Look at the way he equated Millar, Landis and Basso and seemed to say that fans cheering Millar without cheering Landis and Basso were hypocrites. Look at the way he seemed to threaten Pro-Cycling with no more access to him when he didn't like the (reader submitted) questions they asked him. 


> I think Lance's comeback to Kimmage was brilliant - i hope he felt about that size (using index finger and thumb for effect)


I do think Kimmage's cancer metaphor was out of order. That said, Mr. Armstrong sought out Don Caitlin because he was 



> "the most credible and well respected anti-doping crusader, especially here in the United States," Armstrong said about choosing Dr. Catlin.


 (From the Interbike Press Conference).

So surely he'd have no problems talking to a journalist with a strong anti-doping stance?

Incidentally, if anyone's interested in the article Kimmage wrote, it's readable here. The part Mr. Armstrong spent 9/10ths of his time answering is two lines in the very final paragraph. 

Read the whole thing.


----------



## maurice (20 Feb 2009)

Kimmage could have given Lance a much harder time on the Caitlin issue, instead he focused on old-news Landis and gave Lance a tap-in by saying he couldn't get an interview.

He messed up, needs to be smarter if he's going to get anywhere.


----------



## dellzeqq (20 Feb 2009)

John the Monkey said:


> The point isn't to give Mr. Armstrong stick as an end in itself.
> 
> The thing is, Mr. Armstrong has questions to answer - look at the "Quiz" threads regarding his (now, apparently) non existent independent, imperative, transparent anti-doping programme. Look at the answers he gave about the programme before the announcement was made that he and Dr. Catlin were parting ways. Look at the way he equated Millar, Landis and Basso and seemed to say that fans cheering Millar without cheering Landis and Basso were hypocrites. Look at the way he seemed to threaten Pro-Cycling with no more access to him when he didn't like the (reader submitted) questions they asked him.
> I do think Kimmage's cancer metaphor was out of order. That said, Mr. Armstrong sought out Don Caitlin because he was
> ...



+1 

The Caitlin thing is just mad.


----------



## John the Monkey (20 Feb 2009)

maurice said:


> Kimmage could have given Lance a much harder time on the Caitlin issue, instead he focused on old-news Landis and gave Lance a tap-in by saying he couldn't get an interview.


I'm genuinely astonished that no one is asking about the claims made for transparency etc. I saw the fact that no pre-competition results had been posted prior to the Tour Down Under mentioned on one website. ONE.


----------



## Crackle (20 Feb 2009)

maurice said:


> He messed up, needs to be smarter if he's going to get anywhere.



Yes he does....



John the Monkey said:


> Incidentally, if anyone's interested in the article Kimmage wrote, it's readable here. The part Mr. Armstrong spent 9/10ths of his time answering is two lines in the very final paragraph.



....and that article is not smart. I have a lot of sympathy for what he's saying but I cringe at the way he says it.


----------



## Chuffy (20 Feb 2009)

Crackle said:


> Yes he does....
> 
> 
> 
> ....and that article is not smart. I have a lot of sympathy for what he's saying but I cringe at the way he says it.


Yup. A year ago I'd have been cheering every word, but I think it's the wrong tactic now. Having said that, he seems to be the only one with the guts and fire to keep on plugging away.


----------



## Dave5N (20 Feb 2009)

Chuffy said:


> Yup. A year ago I'd have been cheering every word, but I think it's the wrong tactic now. Having said that, he seems to be the only one with the guts and fire to keep on plugging away.



No he's dull, tedious, incapable and frankly can't cut it in proper journalism. Just look at his S Times articles.


----------



## kennykool (20 Feb 2009)

John.Just read that article,funnily enough whilst watching Lance take off in the ITT.

Interesting read.

This nurse O'Reilly I have heard of a few times.....in a couple of books on Lance and as far as I am lead to believe her "evidence" has never stacked up. Hincapie a Doper???? That is honestly the first time I think I have heard that!

"Evidence" from L'equipe also....hardly Lance's biggest fans are they?

I suppose all I can take from this is folks can use whatever 'facts' they have and come up with their own conclusion.....I've just done it myself by dismissing 
L'equipes claim that Lance failed tests in 1999 on the basis that "they don't like him"!

I suppose by the same token that I am blinkered with everything invloving LA as he is the reason that I started riding a bike and as you are probably aware he is somewhat of a hero to me and can do no wrong.

I hope some of this post makes sense as I am typing on my iPhone and it's tough to read it back


----------



## kennykool (20 Feb 2009)

Additional.... One thing that has come out of this is that I now know who Kimmage is!!!!!

Has he got a book coming out???

Look at me being sceptical.... Too much time on this forum perhaps ha ha


----------



## Noodley (20 Feb 2009)

kennykool said:


> Additional.... One thing that has come out of this is that I now know who Kimmage is!!!!!
> 
> Has he got a book coming out???
> 
> Look at me being sceptical.... Too much time on this forum perhaps ha ha



one thing that has come out is that you knew/know nothing about cycling pre-Lance. And refuse to listen to anything that we more experienced and knowledgeable chaps have to say 

I'll take you through it step by step if you want:

1) Le Tour did not start when Lance won.


----------



## kennykool (20 Feb 2009)

Noodley said:


> one thing that has come out is that you knew/know nothing about cycling pre-Lance. And refuse to listen to anything that we more experienced and knowledgeable chaps have to say
> 
> I'll take you through it step by step if you want:
> 
> 1) Le Tour did not start when Lance won.



You're dead right with that Noodley.....Lance is all I knew about in cycling.

I want you guys to know that I AM listening to you and taking everything on board and am learning every day!

I've already fessed up that I'm blinkered when it come to LA!

Sure you lot will to your best to beat that out of me tho ha ha


----------



## wafflycat (20 Feb 2009)

Noodley said:


> one thing that has come out is that you knew/know nothing about cycling pre-Lance. And refuse to listen to anything that we more experienced and knowledgeable chaps have to say
> 
> I'll take you through it step by step if you want:
> 
> 1) Le Tour did not start when Lance won.




2) The greatest ever finish in Le Tour was when it was won by another American, Greg LeMond in 1989, winning it by 8 seconds from Frenchman Laurent Fignon, on the last day, a time trial ending on the Champs Elysee. I watched it - it was magnificent - it still is magnificent.

_Edit: & LeMond came back from his own life-threatening situation, having been shot in the back in 1987 (hunting accident) & taking two years to recover._


----------



## Dave5N (20 Feb 2009)

kennykool said:


> What would Lance do?



Lance isn't fit to carry Noodley's clubs.


----------



## Dave5N (20 Feb 2009)

wafflycat said:


> 2) The greatest ever finish in Le Tour was when it was won by another American, Greg LeMond in 1989, winning it by 8 seconds from Frenchman Laurent Fignon, on the last day, a time trial ending on the Champs Elysee. I watched it - it was magnificent - it still is magnificent.




Magnificent? Bollocks. Cost me a £10 straight bet. Nearly half my giro.


----------



## Crackle (20 Feb 2009)

wafflycat said:


> 2) The greatest ever finish in Le Tour was when it was won by another American, Greg LeMond in 1989, winning it by 8 seconds from Frenchman Laurent Fignon, on the last day, a time trial ending on the Champs Elysee. I watched it - it was magnificent - it still is magnificent.




100% totally agree. Absolutely gripping. Would they ever dare to put a TT on the last day after that.


----------



## wafflycat (20 Feb 2009)

I wish they would - it was a magnificent Tour - none of this 'parade' into Paris on the last day, the winner already having been decided. It was gripping stuff - right down to the wire. Ye gods, it all comes back - wonderful stuff.


----------



## Dave5N (20 Feb 2009)

Next year Ventoux.


----------

