"I've got lots of potatos that need peeling and manure that needs shovelling" -M. Burns
Paul Kimmage had this to say (this is what Lance was referring to):
"My reaction...the enthusiasm that I had built up about the sport in the last couple of years has been all but completely wiped out in the last couple of hours.
Let's turn the clock back to Armstrong's last apparition in the sport. The Tour de France 2005. He's standing on the podium. And he makes this big impassioned speech. Which is basically saying 'The last thing I'll say to the people who don't believe in cycling, the cynics, the sceptics: I'm sorry for you. I'm sorry you can't dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles.' That was 2005, his last ride in the the Tour de France. And the people flanking him on that podium were Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich. And a month after that race ended the French newspaper L'Equipe reported that in his first winning Tour de France, in 1999, Armstrong had tested positive for EPO. Six separate samples taken during that race revealed positive tests for EPO.
This return, he wants us to believe that it's all about saving the world from cancer. That's complete bullshiat. It's about revenge It's about ego. It's about Lance Armstrong. I think he's trying to rewrite his exit from the sport. He's sat back and he's watched the last two years and he cannot stand the idea that there are clean cyclists now that will overtake his legacy and buy the memory of all the crap that he put the sport through.
When I heard it being mooted first that he was coming back, I thought well that's fine, because the first thing ASO are going to say is 'sorry Lance, we've seen your results from the 1999 tests , you're not coming back.' I expected a similar statement from Pat McQuaid. What's happened instead is that Christian Prudhomme has said 'yes, you can come back, no problem.' And Pat McQiad has said 'I really admire this man, he's a tremendous ambassador for cycling.' What we're getting here is the corporate dollars and the money that's going to accompany this guy back into the game. The money that's going to bring for Nike, one of the big sponsors of the Tour. And for the UCI, who have been experiencing some serious problems in the last couple of years.
Much as you want to say the sport has changed, as quickly as they can change their own opinions - McQuaid, who says one thing in private and quite the opposite in public, and Prudhomme - if they can change so quickly then I'm sorry, it's really very, very difficult to have any optimism with regard to Armstrong and the way the sport was moving forward. For me, if he comes back next year, the sport takes two steps back.
I spent the whole Tour this year with Slipstream, the Garmin team. That wasn't by accident. I chose that team deliberately, because of what they were saying about the sport and the message they were putting out. But also the fact that so many of that team had raced with Armstrong during his best years and knew exactly what he got up to. And the stuff that I learnt on that Tour about him and what he was really like was absolutely shocking, really shocking.
What's going to happen now is he comes back and everybody's going to wave their hands in the air and give him a big clap. And all the guys who really know what he's about are going to feel so utterly and totally depressed. And I'm talking about Jonathan Vuaghthers, who raced with Armstrong that first winning Tour and who doped. And if you look at that Tour, Armstrong's first win, there were seven Americans on that team. Frankie Andreu has said he used EPO. Tyler Hamilton has been done for [blood doping]. George Hincapie was exposed as a doper by Emma O'Reilly, the team soigneur. Christian Vand Velde and Jonathan Vaughters ... both are members of Slipstream and would promote the notion that this was not a clean team by any means. When you look at that and what Armstrong's done and how he's seemingly got away with it, it just makes his come back very hard to stomach.
Astana's the absolute perfect team for him. He'd be renewing his old acquaintance with Bruyneel, wh
"I've got lots of potatos that need peeling and manure that needs shovelling" -M. Burns
Good link SP
Fair dues to Kimmage.
He always gets painted as the bitter, washed-up domestique but the Armstrong PR machine has to be challenged.
The way he tried to spin the cancer thing to discredit Kimmage was a disgrace.
Grandpa Simpson: The last time the meteors came, we thought the sky was on fire. Naturally, we blamed the Irish. We hanged more \'n a few.
Chief,
Kimmage is a disgrace - he has made claims which just don't stand up to scrutiny (& not just about LA). Armstrong may (or may not) have been doped, but he must be assumed innocent until found guilty of some offence. The reality is that he has beenbeen tested on hundreds of occasions and hasn't failed a test (yet...). Kimmage should have some respect for those running the sport of cycling and those doing the drug testing. Pat McQuaid is leading the task of ridding the sport of the dopers.
Well before he ever had dreams about becoming a journoKimmage was a pain in the proverbial. You have heard about Kimmage's drug-taking I presume? He reckoned he could win races as his dad was an Irish champion, so instead of training he lounged around and talked himself up. Through his dad's contacts he even got a ride with a French team for a year. He wasn't a serious cyclist (despite his claims to the contrary), and thought some medication could replace the training he should have done. Armstrong basically told the guy off years ago for his laziness and use of 'medication'and may partly explain Kimmage's bitterness and hatred of Armstrong.
If you want to get an idea of how reviled Kimmage is just ask any of the cyclists involved in the sport when Kimmage tried it (Kelly, Roche, Early, Yates, etc). Nobody has a good word to say about him. Kelly famously refused to appear on a Late-Late because Kimmage was going to be there (I'd be banned from here if I repeated what he called him....).
Armstrong was a great cyclist, but should have stayed retired imho. Still behind Anquetil, Mercx, Indurain and even Kelly in my opinion. But he was superbly organised, dedicated & single-minded (& had quite a talent that was spotted early in his career). Best of luck to him in promoting cancer awareness and research, but surely he could have raised that awareness without getting back in the saddle?
Why is Kimmage reviled? For speaking out when those who revile him would prefer he hadn't, as it tarnished their sport and by extension, their achievements and their earning potential.
Mess with someone's money and they will turn on you a lot quicker than they would if you messed with their principles.
They are magnificent athletes, no doubt, those doping included.
But it is a sport rotten to its' very core and until it has rooted out every last trace of doubt, it will remain tarnished.
Rugby better not go the same way.
99 you have no knowledge of the sport with that comment. The sport encourages drug taking. To this day it still actively promotes it at elite level. It is a dirty sport that will never change. You cannot win the Tour De France clean at the speeds they ride up hills of near 90% gradient. Its aerobically and anarobically impossible.I would go as far to say as there has never been a clean winner of the Tour. I used to follow it very closely and then I stopped when I realised our own weren't even clean.
When the likes of Basso, Landis and all the other drug cheats are allowed off scot free to rejoin as they please how can any rational individual have any respect for it.
Kimmage is a bit of a d*ck and that's the main reason people don't like him. But being a d*ck doesn't make you wrong!!! Kimmage is right to question Armstrong, it's highly unlikely he was clean. The fact Kelly wouldn't appear on Late Late Show means nothing, and Roche was alledgedly (watching my words)a doper.
But it still doesn't take away from Armstrong been the best ever, drugs or no drugs. They were all at it when he was winning so it stands to reason he was too, and therefore doesn't take away from his achievements.
Still can't understand how Kelly can be better than Armstrong though 99???
R O,
Because he attacks people by throwing unfounded accusations at them. He was considered promising as a youngster in Ireland, but became a bit of a pain early on (spoilt brat was the first description of him I heard). His family background is pure cycling, both his dad and brother won Irish championships.
He didn't train as he should have and resorted at an early age to throwing muck at those who did go on to win races that he considered he should have won himself. Ask some of the older folks involved with cycling. Some within the trade he now pursues mention that he's a bit on the greedy side & that he courts controversy to increase his own profile - & hence his paycheck/commission.
Re. doping in cycling, andother Irishman (Pat McQuaid)is doing his best to clean it up (& with considerable success). Suffice to say that McQuaid and Kimmage don't do coffees together.
Never seen so much "He's supposed to be" or "apparently" since the Warwick debate 99?!?
Originally Posted by 99_oK?
Bulls**t, you haven't a rashers what you're talking about. He wasn't good enough and he knew it. And more importantly he admitted it. He was never an elite underage cyclist of international class. What he admitted in his book was that he could have taken drugs to earn more money and win middle of the road races. But he chose not to. He actually rode the tour de france clean and finsihed it. Which is a bigger achievment then winning it thanwhen doped which I've no doubt all the winners have been.
You know little or nothing about the sport. About Ferrara, blood doping , the Italian teams etc. Even when one of our own was caught you still refuse to believe it. You cannot question the credentials of David Walsh and Paul Kimmage as journalists. Do you honestly feel they would go on a limb on this one without a shred of evidence?
franman, I lived in Europe when Kelly was king and he is still revered over there. True, he never won theTdF (might have in 83 if he hadn't crashed and broken his collar-bone).He was the wrong build/type of cyclist for most of those tours (all won by climbers), but he won just about everything else. He was rated the world #1 for a number of years (they even changed the criteria to try and dislodge him). Have you ever witnessed/attended any of the classics (Paris-Nice, Hell of the North, etc)?
outlaw - you betray your unfamiliarity of the sport by the figure you quote.
outlaw - Kimmage had the pedigree (how else would he have gotten a pro contract?)but not the dedication or work-ethic needed in a very hard sport. Your claim that he never took anything stronger than water is at odds with the results.
I'd suggest you keep your views that every cyclist is on drugs to yourself. I've seen one former Rás winner reply to Kimmage in a way that Kimmage didn't expect. The Scots are fiery - you can check up on who did whatif you care.
BTW, are you related to PK or have a financial interest in him?
No I haven't and I take your point but unfortunately the "greatest" cyclistsare judged generally by TDF wins. Even Roche would be classified by the general public in Ireland as a better cyclist than Kelly. Not saying it's fair but it's the way it is!!!
I just feel Armstrong feels no guilt in continuing to say he is/was clean. And who can blame him??? He knows the sport is rife with drugs and that all he was doing was beating someone else that was on drugs. Cycling will not become clean overnight, it'll take 10 years to get rid of the low lifes.
Oi Leave me out of this. [img]smileys/lol.gif[/img]
“We’re in this mess, not because Fianna Fail policies have failed, but because they have succeeded.” They haven't gone away, you know"
99 - I would hardly expect Pat McQuaid & Kimmage to be on coffee-terms; one is on the inside of the sport doing his best to promote it and the other is now on the outside doing his best to point out the flaws.
It's a fundamentally flawed sport.
McQuaid has IMHO an impossible task on his hands. Kimmage has an all-too-easy one on his. That does not make him wrong though. I have some respect for McQuaid, as he has opted for'I can do more good from inside the system than I can from outside it' position when it comes to moving the sport out of the dark ages - and who knows, perhaps he can -Kimmage has opted to do what he can from outside the sport. They've made their choices.
I no longer follow cycling. I've made mine.
Just confirmed:
http://www.rte.ie/sport/cycling/2009/0223/armstrongl.html
Like I said what you know about cycling is the back of a stamp material. Kimmage got a pro contract- big deal thats like getting a contract with a provincial rugby team. How many world class players do Munster have on the bench? Same in cycling- how many world class cyclists are domestiques for christs sake. Give me strength.
He didn't dope he took amphetamines at criteriums(you probably don't evenknow what they are).The material is out there if you're interested in drug taking in cycling.About all the world champions drugged on EPO, the past Tour De France winners (including our own) caught with connections to Donati who has physical written evidence of all the champions who doped under his watch. About Michele Ferrara and all the champions who doped under his watchWake up for Christs sake man and broaden your mind.
It takes a brave man to swim against the tide.It takes a coward to swim with the tide. I no longer follow the sport because professional cycling and a lot of the cyclists both past and present are a disgrace to the term "sport". Its a pity because when I was a kid I used to love it. Then my hopes were shattered when the truth came out.
Outlaw - is that you Mark Scanlon???
Do me a favour will you[img]smileys/biggrin.gif[/img]. Just a spectator fran, but I loved the sport until the music stopped and the truth came out. Scanlon is a case study. Now would 99 consider him, a world junior champion of not being good enough? He gave it up because of the dopers and he said himself they are all at it. They ride up mountains nowat the same speed they used to ride on the flat. They actually us simpletons to believe that its simply the human body doing it. Thats what i can never understand that people actually believe in a spectacle like the Tour and that doping is confined to a few.anyone who has seen these mountains knows what i'm talking about.
Paul Kimmage's book is well worth a read for those interested. The way in which doping was viewed in the Cycling world as just part of an ordinary daily routine, like meals, still amazes me. Whats equally impressive is that PK didn't lecture or go on and on about drugs in the book. It seemed like the doping practices were so commonplace that he just left them there in the background.
Never mind perception because it isn’t real. It’s only what people think. Go out and make them think something else. Alan Quinlan Irish Times April 24th 2013
Lads, it's alot more than Cycling that is riddled with drugs.
Make no mistake about it, soccer and rugby have their fair share of drugs floating around in them. As for the American sports, same thing.
What I do see though is cycling highlighting in and being proactive in their approach.
Having said that, Tom Sompson, among others, that cyclists should be allowed to aquire such "help" as it was impossible to live the life of a professional cyclist without it.
This was just before he died going up a hill with some rum and a handful of amphetamines in his belly.
The only 2 Michele Ferraras I know wouldn't be up to much as regards getting the best 'medication', one is a school teacher and the other a litereary guy, but as it's a common family surname (in Italy at least)who knows there may be another out there who might be up to something.....
However, I have actually met and worked with Dr. Michele Ferrari when he worked with FIdAL in Rome. But what would a former track athlete with an interest in sports medicine know about cycling? And what wouldI know anyway........?
Probably as much as Wikipedia and Google.....
The only 2 Michele Ferraras I know wouldn't be up to much as regards getting the best 'medication', one is a school teacher and the other a litereary guy, but as it's a common family surname (in Italy at least)who knows there may be another out there who might be up to something.....
However, I have actually met and worked with Dr. Michele Ferrari when he worked with FIdAL in Rome. But what would a former track athlete with an interest in sports medicine know about cycling? And what wouldI know anyway........?
Good then you'll know all about the athletes he helped dope and especially all the cyclists. So i would imagine at this stage you'll have absolutely nothing to contradict what I've said above. Sports medicine would be an "interesting" depiction of that particular doctor. He once described EPO as nothing more than orange juice. I rest my case.
R O, the tests are there for EPO (including cera and other newer generation haemocrit boosters). McQuaid is taking a measured approach and must be seen to be impartial. However he's no fool and doesn't take prisoners either. Cycling these days at pro level is heavily policed, maybe not at local level here.
But as C H says it's not just cycling that needs to be vigilant. Some US track guys have been caught using cera recently - previously it was thought to have been dabbled with by endurance (only)athletes. The days when guys could get away with various (so-called) undetectables are gone. Most sports are now pretty good at implementing testing. The changing of the guard at WADA a couple of years ago helped enormously.A few high profiles are now serving time. A few sports have yet to sign up (incl. golf). A few have notably refused (some indigenous US sports are the most notorious). Believe Ricky Simms got his young West Indian protége to sign a disclaimer on this.
Unfortunately we have a few in this country (both at admin and in the testing arena) that may have other agendas. And PK has his agenda too - and it isn't ridding cycling (or any other sport) of cheating.
BTW, I wouldn't go saying that rugby is holier than thou in this respect - it's too much like tempting fate....[img]smileys/wink.gif[/img]
I would agree 99 that rugby isn't completely clean, but I don't think it's at any real scale yet. To be honest I'd say it's nearly more likely at club level than it is at provincial. I have heard rumours of a few lads at AIL level but it was a real exception. I think and hope that there's quite a good anti-drugsattitude in rugby.
My main worry in rugby would be with regard to pain relief. A lot of players (all the way down to junior level) think it's ok to take any painkiller as long as it allows them to play. Some pain killers starting to get linked to sudden adult death syndrom, i.e. players exercising while on anti-inflams, etc. Think there will be a lot of talk on this particular subject in next few years.
fran, I've heard rumours of fairly widespread use/abuse in one league (not on this island). I'd better not say any more than that. Just that you don't know what could be going on.
But agree that the attitude matters.
I think you'd need a climbing harness, some ropes and maybe a few
caribeeners for this task.
Ah no Korova it was the drugs....
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote