SwissVan Posted February 14, 2009 Share Tommorow morning is swim training, yes they have indoor pools but no web cams on them....sorri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted February 14, 2009 Share ? Tommorow morning is swim training' date=' yes they have indoor pools but no web cams on them....sorri ? ? ? ?[/quote'] not sure if i want to see you in a speedo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanJ Posted February 14, 2009 Share Tommorow morning is swim training' date=' yes they have indoor pools but no web cams on them....sorri [/quote'] not sure if i want to see you in a speedo At least being winter there I am sure SwissVan doesn't have a major cycling tan to contend with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted February 14, 2009 Share Tommorow morning is swim training' date=' yes they have indoor pools but no web cams on them....sorri [/quote'] not sure if i want to see you in a speedo To right and i dont want anyone seeing me either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted February 14, 2009 Share ianj, it's the only one i know of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted February 14, 2009 Share Tommorow morning is swim training' date=' yes they have indoor pools but no web cams on them....sorri [/quote'] not sure if i want to see you in a speedo At least being winter there I am sure SwissVan doesn't have a major cycling tan to contend with. Jaa cycling tan is a thing of the past, maybe i could go to the solarium (sun bed) in my cycling shorts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwissVan Posted February 14, 2009 Share Good debate guys' date=' 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"? [/quote'] Just released a new one "Engage" But dont tell anyone... would hate to be seen as promoting it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted February 14, 2009 Share ? Tommorow morning is swim training' date=' yes they have indoor pools but no web cams on them....sorri ? ? ? ?[/quote'] not sure if i want to see you in a speedo ? At least being winter there I am sure SwissVan doesn't have a major cycling tan to contend with. ? but he may have speedo-filling problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted February 14, 2009 Share Kimmage is on a crusade' date=' 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. [/quote'] surely that could be said of daniel coyne, and others who have written about him? i'm interested in your thoughts on another one of lance's enemies in the media: david walsh.holy roller2009-02-14 06:13:16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Li Mu Bai Posted February 14, 2009 Share Havent read LA Confidential... yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLegend 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' date=' 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.[/quote'] you see, or opinions differ largely: for me lance is back because he is a narcisst and loves being in teh centre of attention. the cancer topic is being instrumentalised for his sakes. but this is my opinion piece, yours is apparently different to mine. And yes, he is hiding behind the cancer programme. he evaded the direct questions by kimmage and also by other journalist in the past, by not answering the question but repeatedly justifying whatever he does with his cancer awareness. the cancer awareness is a fair project, thus he shouldn't always put this in the forefront when questioned about something that is uncomfortable for him! it's not gullible anymore. he's made his comeback and I strongly beleive he's put load of money in research to make sure nothing he takes will be found in all the tests conducted on him. I further beleive his reasons for dropping this doctor that was supposed to test him andpublish his test results, as well as not publishing all test results as announced in the begining, did not happen because of the the reasons stated by him, but jsut ebcause he's worried about unregular test results by him. my reason for stating this is that, as mentioned above by someone else, lance is a control freak and i am convinced that everything he announced at the end of last year, was well htought through and the apology for not posting his test resutls in the begining of this year, that because of altitude training and blah blah the results showed inregularities and he did not want to feed his critics, is a joke because he knew 100 % what training he would do and he's experienced enough, as well as his advisors, that he could have anticipaited these results.it's a joke. 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? 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. how can you know if he had nothing on his teammates? he didn't reveal anything on his teammaets so yeah, they have no reason to turn their backs on him apart from him claiming cycling is infested with doping. which, sincerely, it is. kimmage's criticism of lance is absolutely justified, yes. he's a journalist and lance should be able to deal with such questions. but apparently he doesn't know how to deal with kimmage. kimmage is spitting in his soup. It's good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Li Mu Bai Posted February 14, 2009 Share Why should LA deal with Kimmage? Why should he take Kimmage seriously? Kimmage admitted to being part of the cancer in cycling. He cheated, he doped. He is part of the problem. Why should anyone have to deal with him?I dont disagree with you that cycling is infested with doping. Kimmage is just using his own weakness to tar everyone else and keep the public reading his stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Windbreaker Posted February 14, 2009 Share Kimmage is on a crusade' date=' 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. [/quote'] surely that could be said of daniel coyne, and others who have written about him? i'm interested in your thoughts on another one of lance's enemies in the media: david walsh.Don't recall having read anything by coyne so can't comment. The thing that I dislike about Kimmage is that he is two-faced and dishonest about his pursuit of LA. He has selected LA because it is good for his pocket. edit - There are many more cyclists that eh could write about with a lot more first hand facts - like roche and some of his other team mates but instead he avoids them completely but is happy to take LA on because he is an easy & lucrative target. I read "From Lance to Landis" hoping to get some sort of a balanced picture of doping & cycling during the era generally but stopped at about page 315 of 330 when it became painfully obvious that the title was completely misleading. There really isn't anything "From Lance to Landis" about it. There is nothing other than the usual LA crap over and over and over and over ... So yes, Walsh is also on the LA gravy train too.Windbreaker2009-02-14 08:34:13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butafly Posted February 14, 2009 Share Kimmage exposed the hypocrasy of the all the players in cycling. pre 80's, when they still rode on Coke and water, the top riders all admitted to taking all sorts of medicines, muti's etc just to finish a race/the tour. Kimmage represents the majority of the worlds cycling pro's . of the 100's of pros in Europe there are only a few "winners"in the true sense of the word. Kimmage realised that he couldn' even do his job if he didn't take something "extra". Funny, that not many of the cyclists that have been busted in the past actually publicly stated beforehand to racing clean. They either keep quiet or say they are against juicing up and they have never tested positive. Has Lance ever admited to racing clean or does he state that he is the most tested athlete in the world. there is a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed Posted February 14, 2009 Share Kimmage is on a crusade' date=' 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. [/quote'] surely that could be said of daniel coyne, and others who have written about him? i'm interested in your thoughts on another one of lance's enemies in the media: david walsh.Don't recall having read anything by coyne so can't comment. The thing that I dislike about Kimmage is that he is two-faced and dishonest about his pursuit of LA. He has selected LA because it is good for his pocket. edit - There are many more cyclists that eh could write about with a lot more first hand facts - like roche and some of his other team mates but instead he avoids them completely but is happy to take LA on because he is an easy & lucrative target.I read "From Lance to Landis" hoping to get some sort of a balanced picture of doping & cycling during the era generally but stopped at about page 315 of 330 when it became painfully obvious that the title was completely misleading. There really isn't anything "From Lance to Landis" about it. There is nothing other than the usual LA crap over and over and over and over ... So yes, Walsh is also on the LA gravy train too. thanks for your thoughts. you gotta read dan coyne's "tour de force". nice balanced book on the man. got to say, i don't want to defend kimmage too much, but i've read a lot of his reportage, and i think he's not as lance-fixated as you think. perhaps armsrong's return has been the focus of many his dispatches, but if you've managed to maintain a relatively high-profile job in journalism for almost two decades - pre-lance, during lance, post lance, and now during lance again - i think it's kinda unfair to tie his success/fame/notoriety/etc to lance.holy roller2009-02-14 08:48:24 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