Paul Kimmage on Lance Armstrong

[Paul_L]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

+1 for Kimmage

 

[raindog]

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]

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]

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
in their urine, but after strenuous exercise, athletes with normal
kidneys often spill protein into their urine. For example, more
than 80 percent of runners spilled protein into their urines after
running the Boston Marathon. The authors state that the
antibodies that are used in the test can attach to any protein in
the urine, not just EPO.

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]

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]

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.