Li Mu Bai Posted February 13, 2009 Share Yup, his top countrymen shut him out once he made his own doings public. Kimmage on his crusade against 'doping cancer' never did say exactly what his team mates (Roche) were up to either. Did they fall out because he was the doper (and its bad publicity to be seen with a villian), or because they were hiding stuff? He never made it exactly clear what Roche did to win the tour.Kimmage makes a lot of noise - I suppose he needs to, to make a living. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted February 13, 2009 Share rude, the way i read it, roche was kinda like armstrong, the "patrone" of the peloton - well in a lesser kind of way - and he didn't take kindly to those who wouldn't keep their mouths shut. remember that young italian (sorry, name escapes me now - phen, help please? ) who earned armstong's wrath? much the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Li Mu Bai Posted February 13, 2009 Share Simeoni? thanks for helping my spelling too haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted February 13, 2009 Share that's the very one! haha! i kept on typing simoni, but knew it was just wrong! haha! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLegend Posted February 14, 2009 Share I dont give Kimmage too much credit - a self confessed doper who doped because he couldn't quite hack it riding clean in the world of cycling. He rode with Stephen Roache yet wouldn't expose any of the doping that others (Roache/Kelly etc) must have been up to. He now goes on his squeeky clean mission to attack everyone else - he doesn't have a patent on doping either' date=' although he was quite proficient in it. Rough ride was a sad read, as was The life and death of Marco Pantani. [...'] I don't understand this argumentation here. why is it important that he didn't and doesn't reveal what exactly his team mates have done in the connection with him giving lance a hard time - with absolute justified criticism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted February 14, 2009 Share I think it'spathetic what Lance does - how can he use the cancer thing once more to evade a proper reply to a justified question? He's hiding behind that..he's a narcist (spelling) and the cancer fight suits him wuite well. One of LA?s reasons for returning to pro cycling is to promote cancer awareness, so you blame him for using every opportunity to raise awareness?He?s hardly hiding, if he wanted to hide anything he would not have made a comeback.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />Kimmages question about why LA ?admires? Basso and Landis is typical journalistic poetic license, where did LA say he admires them?The fact that he does not openly finger other riders / dopers (Basso, Landis etc?) does not mean he admires them, in fact 95% of pro peleton follow the same ethic (except Kimmage on selective occasions). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted February 14, 2009 Share "I am here to fight this disease. I am here so I don't have to deal with it' date=' you don't have to deal with it, none of us have to deal with it, my children don't have to deal with it. [/quote'] What a typical pig headed statement. The less said about this idiot the better, (so YOU dont have to deal with it) - tell that to someone who sleeps strapped to a wall because their bedsores are so bad they cant lie down, or someone who cant even recognise his / her partner for the morphine, - so we dont have to deal with it- the pig headed arrogance of the man is beyond words - heaven save us from another fool like him.! I think you are misinterpreting the statement, perhaps he is referring to finding cures for cancer so that no one has to go through the issues you mention (not himself directly but through raising awareness and getting more people involved into research). <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted February 14, 2009 Share I agree with "TheLegend". I cant help but feel that Kimmage struck a nerve here. And the first thing that Lance does is hide behind the cancer. He has done wonders for cancer awareness' date=' but the way he portrays himself as the saviour, even as a martyr is quite perverse [/quote'] Please back this up with evidence i.e. where does LA say he is a saviour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted February 14, 2009 Share "You don't have a patent on cancer. I'm interested in the cancer of doping in cycling. That has been my life's work! I raced as a professional and I exposed it. Then you come along and the problem disappears." Well replied by Kimagge. When did the doping problem disappear?<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> Quote Kimmage: ?That has been my life's work! I raced as a professional and I exposed it.? Kimmage sounds a bit like a savior here or would that be a martyr? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted February 14, 2009 Share When providing editorial comment you are required to make a judgement.Stand back and read Kimmage's original comment with an unbiased eye. Surely you can see his point? Journalist: Someone who works in the news gathering industry. Objective: undistorted by emotion or personal bias. Kimmage: Someone who works in the news manufacturing industry distorted by personal bias. objectivity in media? interesting subject. objectivity is nigh impossible. we are all framed by our experiences. kimmage is not objective. he admits as much. he is on a crusade. at least you know his viewpoint. thus his writing is not simple reportage. so' date=' as linnega says, it's editorial comment. and, i believe, fair comment. rude makes a good point about armstrong's control when it comes to his name being in print. media juggernaunts should be treated with scepticism and a healthy dose of contempt. armstrong's comeback was based on two things (according to him): cancer awareness and silencing the sceptics once and for all. we have already seen him back-pedalling on the latter, and the former, as porky put so well, is self-serving. kimmage may have been a journeyman cyclist. once again, he admits as much in "rough ride". you know where he's coming from. at least he has the courage of his conviction. armstrong has courage, but the conviction is in doubt. [/quote'] HR trying hard here to find something to pick on with your post ?<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> I guess I?m being na?ve to expect journalists to report objectively, after all they to have to make a living and need to ensure their respective publications are going to sell. I?m not so sure about Kimmages courage of conviction, imo he is promoting the same (profitable) selling story. I wonder when Kimmages next book will be coming out?. Oops my mistake he?s just published another new book, bit of a coincidence hmm?. And no I aint going to promote it anymore, already done enough to mention he has a new one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted February 14, 2009 Share swissvan, you're not naive. there should be enough checks and balances within media outlets to ensure fairness. there is a difference between columnists and reporters. reporters should simply do just that: report on the facts; columnists comment on them. i prefer it when these are clearly labeled. for example, reuters and the associated press will label a story "analysis", "comment", etc. some newspapers do too. comment should be limited to the leader and oped (stands for opposite the editorial page), or be labelled as above. holy roller2009-02-14 04:04:20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Li Mu Bai Posted February 14, 2009 Share I dont give Kimmage too much credit - a self confessed doper who doped because he couldn't quite hack it riding clean in the world of cycling. He rode with Stephen Roache yet wouldn't expose any of the doping that others (Roache/Kelly etc) must have been up to. He now goes on his squeeky clean mission to attack everyone else - he doesn't have a patent on doping either' date=' although he was quite proficient in it. Rough ride was a sad read, as was The life and death of Marco Pantani. [...']I don't understand this argumentation here. why is it important that he didn't and doesn't reveal what exactly his team mates have done in the connection with him giving lance a hard time - with absolute justified criticism? What is absolutely justified by kimmage? He wont accept LA's reingn at the top, cant substantiate his position further with proof, and calls him the cancer in cycling. He infers that the top cyclists all dope, yet had nothing on his teamates and sounded sad and confused in his book when they turned their backs on him after he revealed he was in fact part of the cancer in cycling. Kimmage should not be taken too seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted February 14, 2009 Share swissvan' date=' you're not naive. there should be enough checks and balances within media outlets to ensure fairness. there is a difference between columnists and reporters. reporters should simply do just that: report on the facts; columnists comment on them. i prefer it when these are clearly labeled. for example, reuters and the associated press will label a story "analysis", "comment", etc. some newspapers do too. comment should be limited to the leader and oped (stands for opposite the editorial page), or be labelled as above. [/quote'] Hmm will keep an eye out for that "analysis", "comment" next time. Naive no but i'm definetly bored today... -3 and snowing all morning Web Camera at our local out door swimming pool http://www.panoramablick.com/index.php?nav_id=2941&kat_id=2980&cam_id=2491&lang=en&action=showkat http://www2.feuerwehr-baar.ch/webcams/webcam2.jpgSwissVan2009-02-14 04:13:34 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted February 14, 2009 Share you going for a swim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanJ Posted February 14, 2009 Share Good debate guys, more like what the Hub should be all about .I am just finishing Kimmage's book so haven't really formed an opinion on the man yet. I think that it boils down to what you personally want to believe about the extent of doping in the sport. If, like me, you believe it to be pretty prevalent at the pro level then I think you would tend to take Kimmage's side. I find myself sympathising with the man in his struggle to resist doping but eventually being drawn into it due to pure pressure to produce results. Has Kimmage written any more books apart from "Rough Ride"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windbreaker Posted February 14, 2009 Share Kimmage is on a crusade, which is fine but he is on a crusade that has been carefully selected. i.e. he is very outspoken about the one person who is guaranteed to keep him in the spotlight constantly. You have to ask the question about why he has not shown the same vigour in pursuing roche (for example). So I don't buy the bit about spending time with slipstream because they demonstrated "clean traits" that he was so interested in pursuing. He makes his real reasons known when he notes the past links between certain people on the team to LA. He just wanted to be close to individuals who he could milk for more dirt on LA. His motives are just as questionable as the object of his crusade (and major source of income???) He is a leech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now