[Closed] Armstrong v Kimmage

I think Kimmage should keep hounding Armstrong and the other hypocritical drugs cheats. Armstrong supports known drug cheats, has a very dubious history himself and many folk believe Armstrong is an unproven drug cheat.

No - he should shout louder

Kimmage is a real hard liner. It's what's amde hi, - difficult to back out of that sort of position and retain integrity when you're pointing at others' hypocrisy.

Pro cycling is full of it. I have no idea if Armstong has doped. He certsainly was strong in a significant era of doping, but that doesn't prove anything.

Agree that Armstrong's attitude stinks - the whole favoured/non-favoured journalist thing (like the photographing of journalists who give him a hard time in press conferences - what are you going to do, Stapleton, set the CIA on them?) is too paranoid for a healthy sport.

More here:

[url= http://www.news10.net/video/default.aspx?aid=70159 ]video[/url]

Whilst I think that there is obviously doping in cycling (and other sports) and it's good that journalists try and dig it out, I'm not convinced Kimmage is particularly objective. I get a whiff of conspiracy theorist about him.

[i]many folk believe Armstrong is an unproven drug cheat. [/i]

People like Kimmage. In fairness to Armstrong he's been tested thousands of times and never tested positive. What more can he do? Saying he's an 'unproven drugs cheat' is like saying he's an 'unproven horse b*ggerer' or 'unproven lover of acid jazz'. It's meaningless.

IHN

It is clear that in the USA the dopers have been one step ahead of the testers. Big questions have been asked over Armstrong. Strangeness in sample, retrospective testing that shows anomolies that could not have been detected at the time and so on. Myself I am sure he doped.

Kimmage is good for the sport but he should relax a bit and look at the plus side of the sport for a change. Witch hunts are old news and hes dragging up old stories and history that should be left alone.

In my opnion he is frustrated and angry as he was a average pro at best and when he did take "the gear" himself (he admitted this) he was still getting dropped. So hes out to get the better riders.

Average cyclist turned hack turned troll

Kimmage admitted doping? I remember reading he felt bad about injecting vitamins but more than that?

[i]Big questions have been asked over Armstrong. Strangeness in sample, retrospective testing that shows anomolies that could not have been detected at the time and so on.[/i]

I agree, but nothing has ever been proved. It wouldn't surprise me if he had doped to be honest, but no-one has yet proved anything. Rather than the constant rumour campaign (that the French in particular seem to wage) they should concentrate on acquiring cold, hard facts.

I'm not an Armstrong apologist BTW. The more I've read about him the more he seems to be a bullying, horrible little man. Amazingly driven, raised squillions for a worthwhile cause, but I'm damn sure I wouldn't want to work for him.

Unfortunatly top sports people tend to be rather driven and unpleasant. Nice guys don't win!

IHN its called cold, hard focus.
Many successful sportsman 'suffer' from it. Watched a trashy 'siblings of the famous' last night and Ryan Giggs's brother was saying how he loved to live it up/drugs/party whilst Ryan really knuckled down etc. Reminds me of why people like Stan Collymore and Gazza fell to the wayside- loved to party and freakout too much. To be really successful sometimes you have to drop the niceties? 🙂

Edit. Oh gawd I agreed with TJ. Quick TJ send me a pamphlet on Soviet traction production! 😉

Oh aye, definitely. You can't be the best without thinking you're the best.

I bet the Pelaton can be a pretty evil place to be in at most times.

[i]To be really successful sometimes you have to drop the niceties?[/i]

Actually, I'll disagree there. You have to be focused, work hard, have the confidence etc etc, but there are plenty of examples of top-level sportsfolks who don't turn into self-centred egomaniacs. Take Beckham or Moore from the world of footie, both were at the very top of their game bit had/have reputations for being real gents.

Depends in the sport, if its a team sport etc etc etc. Many sports dont have a Pelaton.
I must admit, readily admit, I think the sun shines out of Armstrongs arse. I dont care. Back in the 90's EVERYONE was smacked up in the Pelaton to some degree. If he wasnt thats even more amazing that he beat those that were. If he was also then it was a level playing field.
Still, after his comeback from his illness I can only admire him. Sorry.

Take Beckham or Moore from the world of footie, both were at the very top of their game bit had/have reputations for being real gents.

Chris Hoy seems to have a brilliant reputation as well.

David Beckham being held up as a role model on STW........?

(Actually, I agree with you, but don't tell anyone)

Armstrong comes across as a nob in that video IMO. Self-righteous crap.

(FWIW, I chose to believe Armstrong has always been clean)

Armstrong is a total c0ck...end of discussion!
😉

In my opinion, i reckon he has cheated but obviously it's never been proven so i can't comment.
What gets me is his attitude to other riders, journos etc.

I find the Amstrong line about "most tested athlete on the planet so I must be clean" such bull*****. Marion Jones was tested 160 times and never tested positive, many many riders who now have admitted doping ( zabel, aldag, Riis, etc, etc )also passed the same tests he spouts prove he was clean, sadly they prove nothing.

Nice guys sometimes win

Indurain was a nice guy

(Doped to the eyeballs though)

I bet the Pelaton can be a pretty evil place to be in at most times.

Armstrong's famous bullying - and infamous chasing down in the 2004 Tour - of Filippo Simeoni in relation to the Michele Ferrari scandal is a case in point.

Armstrong behaved entirely irrationally. Any praise I had for him disappeared after that.

IHN - Moore came from a different era, not sure that same gentlemanliness would have stacked up under the different pressures today (I'm not knocking him, superb player and a legend for sure - just a different era)

Beckham - another vv good player, maybe a great, successful to a degree, but in the same class of total world dominance as Armstrong?

I'm sure LA is an absolute **** at times but equally that's what has driven him to the very top time and again. Whether clean or not, to do what he has from where he started from takes more than a nice-guy attitude. Pure selfish determination, and if that means clearing everything / everyone in front of him out of the way, so be it. What is it, 2 failed marriages now, etc.... Would I want to be like that - no, I have other priorities but that's why I'll never win a grand Tour. Among other reasons.

And so to Chris Hoy. So far at least, the exception that proves the rule that nice guys don't usually make great sportspeople. But equally, you wouldn't cross him would you....?

Nice guys don't win!

Nicola Vouilloz, Anne Caroline Chausson, Fabien Barel... All three very nice and accessible guys.

Hoy is deffo an exception - the very top of his sport without being an egomanic arse

I've read Lance's first 2 books and found them quite a good read but total Lance propoganda. I've just finnished reading "Bad Blood" by Jeremy Whittle and now I hate the guy (Lance that is not the author). Kermage didn't come over very well in Whittle's book either. I know journalism is rarely objective but given all the reports, whistle blowers and former US postal/discovery team-mates subsequent admissions, the guy is a cheat and a bully and shouldn't be given the time of day let alone a place in the tour. And yes his foundation does do a lot of good work for charity but i'm sure this is down to the hard work of the people running the foundation not the personal efforts of Mr L. Armstrong.

hora - Member
Average cyclist turned hack turned troll

Hora you really should engage brain sometimes.

Kimmage actually toured with the Garmin/ Chipotle team last year and wrote quite a positive piece about it actually giving him hope for the future after so many years.

Average cyclist

Amstrong world dominance! no! What other tours did he win? What classics?

[i]Beckham - another vv good player, maybe a great, successful to a degree, but in the same class of total world dominance as Armstrong?[/i]

Well, when he was at the height of his powers I doubt there was a team in the world (domestic or international) that wouldn't have been glad to have him.

Valentino Rossi & [to a lesser extent] Troy Bayliss are/were dominant in their sport & are about as pleasant a person as you're likely to come across

Forgot to had wendy ball players such as zidane, papin (probably other but I am not a wendy ball fan).
Dupont was a great guy and IIRC I think he is the most title sportsman on earth (ok it's waterskiing).

most of the rugby player I have heard sound like nice people too...

Well, when he was at the height of his powers I doubt there was a team in the world (domestic or international) that wouldn't have been glad to have him.

I agree, but that's the difference with a team sport. It still doesn't mean he was the dominant force at that time or any other, which Armstrong could at least lay claim to.

Amstrong world dominance! no! What other tours did he win? What classics?

A fair point, but equally you have to accept that everything he did was geared (hoho!) around dominating the biggest race in the cycling calendar, to the detriment of anything else he entered. And are you seriously saying that from the period when he returned from cancer to his retirement he was not the dominant figure in road cycling (or cycling in general)?

As far as the US oriented press goes then yes he was the most dominant in terms of column inches and media profile.
In terms of palmares he's nowhere near the best.

[i]Amstrong world dominance! no! What other tours did he win? What classics? [/i]

He was World Champion when he was 21 and a Tour stage winner back in his Motorola (pre-cancer) days. He's won Clásica San Sebastián in the past and plenty of US one-day and stage races. OK so he's not as dominant as Merckx was in his day but he's still the best ever Tour de France rider.

Kimmage. Hmm, unsure. He's got a reputation for controversy, maybe he's right, maybe not but regardless of the rumours and half-truths Armstrong is still legally innocent until [b]proven[/b] guilty. And there's never been any absolute proof.

Crazy - agree with much of what you've said.

LA youngest world champion ever I recall, then lost 10kg and upped power...pretty potent combo I reckon....drug use never proved unlike Kimmage,Millar, Landis,Indurain,Riis Basso et al

Kimmage has to make a living from journalism...hence riling Lance is a good way to up his exposure

Lance probably isn't a nice bloke but had a tough childhood and lives in an arena where a "troll" can make a fortune with a pic or story linking him to doping...he can't trust anyone can he?

We either have a 2 yr ban for doping then a clean slate or a lifetime ban...can't blame people for mistakes for ever

""aracer - Member

Average cyclist

Presuming you mean Kimmage, then he'd still blow the socks of anybody on here. He was average in the same way that Barrie Clarke was. ""

I said average pro. Still loads of respect for him or anyone who can hang on and complete any Grand Tour. You have to be "nails" to be able to complete one either "whizzing of your t1ts" or clean.

Anyone who has raced in a international multi stage RR will agree.

I can remember coming across LA in 90 or 91, probably before most of you had ever heard of hi. He was brash and loud and kinda exciting to watch riding. Yes, he was World Champion (a horrible rainy day as well) at a very early age, and I was very sad when he became very ill. When he was returning I was quite excited, then I read his book and although sad for him for what he'd been through it kind of put me off him as a person.
I just wish all those dear Colonials would stop thinking that he's the only cyclist who ever rode a bike.

kkf - my comment was aimed at hora (who I was quoting - sorry if that wasn't clear), not you.

drug use never proved unlike Kimmage,Millar, Landis,Indurain,Riis Basso et al

Anyone got a link for Kimmage admiting to drug use?

Here Kimmage says Lance tested positive for EPO:
[url= http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=54741&catid=2 ]http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=54741&catid=2[/url]

I think the ‘cancer’ that Kimmage is referring to is that during the lance year he perceives that lance had a negative effect on doping culture in cycling. Lances refusal and suppression of journalists such as Kimmage, Whittle and Walsh meant that doping issues were not brought in to the open. Any journalist speaking out about Lance (or doping in general) were refused access to him and often threatened with legals. Lance could have been a force for good and spoken out about doping – but instead pretty much forced it off the cycling sports pages. Kimmage is right to keep on about it, he’ll never prove that Lance was doping but he’s right to try and get journalists and cyclists to talk openly about the issues and stamp it out – rather than pretending it doesn’t exist.

Millar was busted by the Police after they searched his house and found two used syringes containing traces of EPO sitting in plain view on his book shelf. He said that he wanted to look at them every morning when he got up to remind himself that he was a cheat.

I think it's fair to give Millar a second chance so by that reasoning we have to stand by the 2 year rule for Landis et al.