Paul Kimmage

[TheLegend]

 

Why should LA deal with Kimmage? Why should he take Kimmage seriously? Kimmage admitted to being part of the cancer in cycling. He cheated' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

why should lance deal with him? because Kimmage asks important, very relevant questions and lance doesn't do anything to proove Kimmage wrong.

it's not as much the person 'Kimmage' for me, but how Lance tries to avoid his questions.

Kimmage WAS part of the problem. You think that no one should talk to him, becuase of his past and his confession?

 

[Tumbleweed]

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.??

 

 

 

i know the twist on the quotes you refer too, and the implication, but it's not entirely true. it's selective. lance has denied upright that he ever took anything in the past.

[TheLegend]

 

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.  

 

 

 

i know the twist on the quotes you refer too' date=' and the implication, but it's not entirely true. it's selective. lance has denied upright that he ever took anything in the past.[/quote']

including viagara?

 

[Tumbleweed]

 

Why should LA deal with Kimmage? Why should he take Kimmage seriously? Kimmage admitted to being part of the cancer in cycling. He cheated' date=' 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.[/quote']why should lance deal with him? because Kimmage asks important, very relevant questions and lance doesn't do anything to proove Kimmage wrong.it's not as much the person 'Kimmage' for me, but how Lance tries to avoid his questions. Kimmage WAS part of the problem. You think that no one should talk to him, becuase of his past and his confession?

 

 

 

here's a thought: david walsh and paul kimmage have got to the man. he is normally so measured, if firm, but, when it comes to those two, he is obviously rattled. they should be "below" him, not even worth his contempt, but they clearly irk him. this shows weakness. sure, a rare weakness, but it's a weakness nonetheless. maybe we should chalk that up as one for the little guys?

[IanJ]

I don't believe it! Six pages of intelligent and interesting debate with no hijacks and not one personal attack (except for HR and me having a dig at Swissvan and his swimming habits).

 

I think there is merit in only logging on to the Hub on the weekend.

 

[TheLegend]

 

 

Why should LA deal with Kimmage? Why should he take Kimmage seriously? Kimmage admitted to being part of the cancer in cycling. He cheated' date=' 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.[/quote']why should lance deal with him? because Kimmage asks important, very relevant questions and lance doesn't do anything to proove Kimmage wrong.it's not as much the person 'Kimmage' for me, but how Lance tries to avoid his questions. Kimmage WAS part of the problem. You think that no one should talk to him, becuase of his past and his confession?

 

 

 

here's a thought: david walsh and paul kimmage have got to the man. he is normally so measured, if firm, but, when it comes to those two, he is obviously rattled. they should be "below" him, not even worth his contempt, but they clearly irk him. this shows weakness. sure, a rare weakness, but it's a weakness nonetheless. maybe we should chalk that up as one for the little guys?

 

chalk it baby!

 

[TheLegend]

 

I don't believe it! Six pages of intelligent and interesting debate with no hijacks and not one personal attack (except for HR and me having a dig at Swissvan and his swimming habits).

 

I think there is merit in only logging on to the Hub on the weekend.

 

 

sssssshhhhhhhh, don't push it man!

 

[Li Mu Bai]

 

Why should LA deal with Kimmage? Why should he take Kimmage seriously? Kimmage admitted to being part of the cancer in cycling. He cheated' date=' 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.[/quote']why should lance deal with him? because Kimmage asks important, very relevant questions and lance doesn't do anything to proove Kimmage wrong.it's not as much the person 'Kimmage' for me, but how Lance tries to avoid his questions. Kimmage WAS part of the problem. You think that no one should talk to him, becuase of his past and his confession?

 

I think kimmage is taken too seriously.

 

Tour de Force was quite interesting in highlighting Armstrongs self obsession and attempts to control the worlds view of his image. He seems to try be one step ahead of the 'f@cking little trolls' as he refers to walsh and all the others whom he perceives to be laying seige to what he has built around his persona. The fact that he doesnt deign to answer kimmages utterances further illustrates his contempt for this ex-doper.

 

At least walsh hasnt admitted doping...

[Tumbleweed]

 

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.??

 

 

 

i know the twist on the quotes you refer too' date=' and the implication, but it's not entirely true. it's selective. lance has denied upright that he ever took anything in the past.[/quote']including viagara?

 

 

 

 

 

oops only saw that typo now

[butafly]

QUOTE]
I think kimmage is taken too seriously.
Tour de Force was quite interesting in highlighting Armstrongs self obsession and attempts to control the worlds view of his image. He seems to try be one step ahead of the 'f@cking little trolls' as he refers to walsh and all the others whom he perceives to be laying seige to what he has built around his persona. The fact that he doesnt deign to answer kimmages utterances further illustrates his contempt for this ex-doper.
At least walsh hasnt admitted doping...[/QUOTE]

 

thats what Kimmage has a problem with, the perception that Lance is trying to sell that he and his fellow cyclists are performing these extraordnary feats drug free. Kimmage realised that he couldn't perform, even as a domestique, without drugs. he dropped out of the sport and admitted his usage of drugs. Kimmage knows what it takes to perform day in and day out on a bicycle with and without drugs and he is just questioning the the best cyclist the world has ever seen as to how he is able to perform at those levels without "help". I think Lance is just a little pissed off that someone has the guts to stand up to him and who knows the "little secrets and omerta" of the bunch. Lemond vs Lance - same story      

butafly2009-02-15 03:50:59

[Guest colonel]

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.

 

Kimmage may be dishonest and 2 faced in his pursuite of LA, but Lance is dishonest and 2 faced with the cycling world.

 

I know there are alot of LA fans out there and on this forum but to me he is a cheat, lier and a giver of false hope to people. To me that alot worse than anything else.

[The Guy in Pink]

here's a thought: david walsh and paul kimmage have got to the man. he is normally so measured' date=' if firm, but, when it comes to those two, he is obviously rattled. they should be "below" him, not even worth his contempt, but they clearly irk him. this shows weakness. sure, a rare weakness, but it's a weakness nonetheless. maybe we should chalk that up as one for the little guys? [/quote']

I think his put down of Krimmage was measured and Firm. ( Not worthy of the chair.  ....) It was probably also rehearsed, so no,  not rattled,  he is still the control freak.

 

[Tumbleweed]

here's a thought: david walsh and paul kimmage have got to the man. he is normally so measured' date=' if firm, but, when it comes to those two, he is obviously rattled. they should be "below" him, not even worth his contempt, but they clearly irk him. this shows weakness. sure, a rare weakness, but it's a weakness nonetheless. maybe we should chalk that up as one for the little guys? [/quote']

 

I think his put down of Krimmage was measured and Firm. ( Not worthy of the chair.? ....) It was probably also rehearsed, so no, ?not rattled, ?he is still the control freak.

 

?

 

 

 

but if he is rehearsing things as comebacks to him, he has rattled him.

[TheLegend]

 

here's a thought: david walsh and paul kimmage have got to the man. he is normally so measured' date=' if firm, but, when it comes to those two, he is obviously rattled. they should be "below" him, not even worth his contempt, but they clearly irk him. this shows weakness. sure, a rare weakness, but it's a weakness nonetheless. maybe we should chalk that up as one for the little guys? [/quote']

 

I think his put down of Krimmage was measured and Firm. ( Not worthy of the chair.  ....) It was probably also rehearsed, so no,  not rattled,  he is still the control freak.

 

 

 

 

 

but if he is rehearsing things as comebacks to him, he has rattled him.

 

me thinks, too.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

QUOTE]

 

thats what Kimmage has a problem with' date=' the perception that Lance is trying to sell that he and his fellow cyclists are performing these extraordnary feats drug free. Kimmage realised that he couldn't perform, even as a domestique, without drugs. he dropped out of the sport and admitted his usage of drugs. Kimmage knows what it takes to perform day in and day out on a bicycle with and without drugs and he is just questioning the the best cyclist the world has ever seen as to how he is able to perform at those levels without "help". I think Lance is just a little pissed off that someone has the guts to stand up to him and who knows the "little secrets and omerta" of the bunch. Lemond vs Lance - same story      

[/quote']

Well I'm not sure Kimmage knows exactly what it is completeing at LA's level. People tend to forget that LA was exceptional prior to winning his first Tour.  Kimmage was doping as a domestique just to be able to hold a wheel:

Lets recap:

-: Prior to LA getting sick, he was a million dollar racer (3 american series win), 2 time stage winner of the Tour, and World Champion - TOP of the class.

-: He then goes thru the whole kemo episode. In my mind, fighting through the intense searing misery of the drugs, taught him a thing or two about managing the pain a bike race induces, no matter how long. I dont think there is anyone out there who has yet faced this experience to be able to comment.

-: He teams up with Bruneel, one of the most astute tactical minds in cycle racing (Bruneel was the only rider to have 'pinched' a Tour stage win from under Miguel Indurains nose, and as director winner of 8 Tours)

-: LA's focus then became singular - The Tour. he didn't race the classics as Merckx did. Rather he spent his time rehearsing over and over the key stages of the Tour etc etc each year for 7 YEARS.

-: He didnt take an off season period as the other pro's might have, rather trained all year round, in ALL conditions - sun rain snow.

-: In the Tours he had his own share of luck - almost bonking without his competitors taking advantage, falls, tactical tricks, and iron fisted control of a team tailored to support him etc etc.

-: He didn't play 'chicken' hiding from the out of season doping contols as Rasmussen did.

 

LA is a control freak, there is no grey area with him just black or white. You are with him or against him, period. He seems to have done what it takes to win, something Kimmage has no real clue about.

 

As Bruneel says in his Book 'We might as well win', its not for LA to prove he is clean, what more must he do? 

Whether he doped or not, well LA isn't ever going to admit that now is he?

Let someone else proove it.

 

[TheLegend]

 

[...]

 

LA is a control freak' date=' there is no grey area with him just black or white. You are with him or against him, period. He seems to have done what it takes to win, something Kimmage has no real clue about.

 

As Bruneel says in his Book 'We might as well win', its not for LA to prove he is clean, what more must he do? 

Whether he doped or not, well LA isn't ever going to admit that now is he?

Let someone else proove it.

 

[/quote']

 

well, lance stopped/never started the blood controls with that doctor he annouced.