Professional Cycling For the Fans - Kimmage doesn't hold back his feelings on the 'Second Coming'

Wow, Paul (http://cyclingfansanonymous.blogspot.com/2008/09/kimmage-says-it-all.html). Tell us how you really feel.

Wow, anyone for a cup of bitter?

well said, paul.

it's about the ego. unless he's pissed all his money against the wall chasing Olsen twins around.

it was on a newstalk (irish talk radio ) morning news program

i pretty much agree with paul

"a cancer to cycling"

http://83.138.170.50/podcasts/audio/2509%20cycling.mp3

it was on a newstalk (irish talk radio ) morning news program

i pretty much agree with paul

"a cancer to cycling"

http://83.138.170.50/podcasts/audio/2509%20cycling.mp3

Cheers for that - great find.

Cheers for that - great find.

Certainly not for the industry. It's black & white.

Question: I do not remember Emma O'Reilly implicating Hincapie in drug use. Was that in the book by David Walsh? If that was stated, I missed that part. This was written in the above piece by Kimmage.

i read kimmage's book: rough ride, and it was entertaining enough. he certainly was no winner, but a good whiner. none the less, a good read. as far as what he has to say about armstrong, gee, the word bitter comes to mind. as far as any of you guys that are bashing LA and his comeback, wtf would any of you know about his motivation? the guy certainly races well, and if he wnts to comeback to the sport, he has every right. be a lemming if you want, and sneer and ***** like lemmings do ( oh, and *******, the kind who suck at sports), not one of you would say word one to the guy's face, so really, shut the **** up, take some time, do some homework, and know you don't know ****. i don't either, believe me. i do know the guy raced at a higher level and was never proven dirty, and other than that, i could give a ****, certainly not about who he bangs cuz its not relevant to anything. i can't wait to watch him race again.

i read kimmage's book: rough ride, and it was entertaining enough. he certainly was no winner, but a good whiner. none the less, a good read. as far as what he has to say about armstrong, gee, the word bitter comes to mind. as far as any of you guys that are bashing LA and his comeback, wtf would any of you know about his motivation? the guy certainly races well, and if he wnts to comeback to the sport, he has every right. be a lemming if you want, and sneer and ***** like lemmings do ( oh, and *******, the kind who suck at sports), not one of you would say word one to the guy's face, so really, shut the **** up, take some time, do some homework, and know you don't know ****. i don't either, believe me. i do know the guy raced at a higher level and was never proven dirty, and other than that, i could give a ****, certainly not about who he bangs cuz its not relevant to anything. i can't wait to watch him race again.

Wow, Chris (http://www.bikeforums.net/showpost.php?p=7542839&postcount=8). Tell us how you really feel.

Nothing any of us can do will change anything. I don't get people getting so worked up about Lance coming back. Anger just raises blood pressure and shortens life. Regardless of your point of view here, there's some element of entertainment to be had. I'm just going to watch what happens.

i read kimmage's book: rough ride, and it was entertaining enough. he certainly was no winner, but a good whiner..

Why do you say he's a whiner? What he says has been borne out.


none the less, a good read. as far as what he has to say about armstrong, gee, the word bitter comes to mind. ..

Bitter? why? for telling the truth that Lance was doped up to his eyeballs. The Hgh, cortisone and steroids he admitted to taking probably caused his cancer in the first place.


as far as any of you guys that are bashing LA and his comeback, wtf would any of you know about his motivation? ..

He's motivated to not look like he's nuts like his mom with her 5 husbands.



the guy certainly races well, and if he wnts to comeback to the sport, he has every right...

It's very stupid for him to comeback because with his hct not jacked up to the mid 50's to 60 he'll be a shell of what he was...I wonder if he'll get to his magic number of 6.7 watts per kg for this TdF.


be a lemming if you want,...

Who's being the lemming with their delusional belief here.



and sneer ...

I don't know about sneering, but I am laughing at LA and his followers.


and ***** like lemmings do ( oh, and *******, the kind who suck at sports), not one of you would say word one to the guy's face,...

So what you're saying is that you have huge props for LeMond because he's going out of his way to get in LA's face.


so really, shut the **** up, take some time, do some homework, and know you don't know ****

LeMond got behind Walsh's book 100%. Is he one of those disparaging labels you're tossing around. Frankie Andreu just about ruined his career by telling the truth about Lance. Stephen Swart, what does he have to gain?


. i don't either, believe me. i do know the guy raced at a higher level and was never proven dirty, and other than that, i could give a ****, certainly not about who he bangs cuz its not relevant to anything. i can't wait to watch him race again.

Chris, Chris, take a quaalude, a xanax or a valium, a deep breath maybe, something..

Peace.

Nothing any of us can do will change anything. I don't get people getting so worked up about Lance coming back. Anger just raises blood pressure and shortens life. Regardless of your point of view here, there's some element of entertainment to be had. I'm just going to watch what happens.

+100.........I dont expect Lance to win but why all the haters??????????????

Why do you say he's a whiner? What he says has been borne out.



Bitter? why? for telling the truth that Lance was doped up to his eyeballs. The Hgh, cortisone and steroids he admitted to taking probably caused his cancer in the first place.



He's motivated to not look like he's nuts like his mom with her 5 husbands.




It's very stupid for him to comeback because with his hct not jacked up to the mid 50's to 60 he'll be a shell of what he was...I wonder if he'll get to his magic number of 6.7 watts per kg for this TdF.



Who's being the lemming with their delusional belief here.




I don't know about sneering, but I am laughing at LA and his followers.



So what you're saying is that you have huge props for LeMond because he's going out of his way to get in LA's face.



LeMond got behind Walsh's book 100%. Is he one of those disparaging labels you're tossing around. Frankie Andreu just about ruined his career by telling the truth about Lance. Stephen Swart, what does he have to gain?



Chris, Chris, take a quaalude, a xanax or a valium, a deep breath maybe, something..

Peace.

did you read rough ride? all the guy did was abandon race after race and whine about it. have some guts, try to be stoic, respect the sport. yeah, i can appreciate that lemond spoke his mind to LA's face, i really can. point is, there is a lot of ****slinging going on, by people who have no clue. and i consider paul kimmage one of them. he is bombastic and empassioned, but christ is he unimformed. and walsh's book (s)? come on, not a single piece of legally/medically recognized substantiation. i could give a rat's ass if LA doped, or any rider, i loved the sport before i knew it was full of drugs, and i loved it after, and i love it now. what i don't love is a bunch of people who know nothing, because really, how could you? just talking ****. speculate all you want, but just remember you don't know jack about the guy, or his motivations, or his medical history. what is known, undeniably, is that he kicked some serious ass when he raced his bike. he showed class IN the sport. the rest doesn't matter, its utterly meaningless. yeah, i'll take a qualuude sunshine, as soon as you take some time and try to figure out wtf you think you know and how on earth you could possibly come to KNOW something about someone other than yourself, or have something to say, about a great sportsman and a fierce competitor. its bike racing after all, the rest is just chatter...

well said, paul.

it's about the ego. unless he's pissed all his money against the wall chasing Olsen twins around.

Isn't everything in life about ego?

And if Lance is indeed tapping the twins, good for him.

unless he's pissed all his money against the wall chasing Olsen twins around.

Ah .... he's racing sans a salary. :rolleyes:

And for the fools that think cycling is somehow clean now .... that it's just those dopers from the past that can now screw up the sport .... well, you boys really need to get a grip. Doping is alive and well in cycling and alway will be - that's just a byproduct of the sport and human nature.

BTW, I'm not a huge fan of Armstrong, and I DO think he doped. I don't know how that has anything to do with this comeback for cancer. It seem like pure win for everyone involved.

... Brad

Gents, lets try and not let anything get heated about a situation you can do nothing about on this forum. It's not worth it.

One more self-proclaimed genius that I wouldn't let deliver newspapers. If he followed the 1999 L'Equipe ragsheet expose', you would follow it through the facts and find out that EPO, if it ever existed in LA's samples, it would have been totally obliterated by their freezing and the time period. So said the individual who invented the drug in the first place. But what would he know?

Instead, believe the newspaper who seems to have facts never scientifically verified. Landis, Mayo, ???? I have seen so many misadventures with AFLD, L'Equipe' and the lab in France, that I think that a dartboard is used to determine whose careers we will destroy next.

If I played with these idiots, there would allways be two samples, one that I kept under proper lock and key to prove their idiocy.

Ah .... he's racing sans a salary. :rolleyes:

endorsements? store publicity? book sales? more money by far than a salary.

Motivation shmotivation. When he retired it was to "spend more time with his kids." By which he apparently meant "date a series of thin blonds." I lost huge amounts of respect for him over this apparent bit of double speak.

LeMonde talked of LA and of doping; LA seems to have pulled strings at Trek to get the LeMonde line dropped. Trek road sales took a hit. On the face of it, the comeback could be a repayment to Trek for the dropping LeMonde.

As for Greg, well, a conscience is never a convenient thing to have. Particularly a strong conscience.

I used to want to believe the LA story, but the endless succession of former teammates busted for doping, (is the list of busted longer or shorter than the list of not-yet-busted?), the list of former rivals who've been busted for doping turned me. Throw his phalanx of lawyers into the mix and I cannot in good conscience wish him success.

His first book was "It's not about the bike."
A properly titled book about the return might be "It's not about the foundation."

Of course Greg Lemond can't handle lance coming back. He is nothing but a washed up has-been crying in his beer since Lance stole his thunder in the U.S. Lemond has done nothing but badmouth Armstrong since his first win. Jealousy is an ugly thing, especially when you get quoted internationally.

I could care less about Lemond's opinion about Lance, doping, etc. He was probably so juiced when he rode that he can't remember how many times he won the Tour. No testing, no foul. If I listened to that fool, all riders were clean before Lance.

The Tour has a long and ridiculous history of doping from the very early years. Who is to say this is right, wrong, etc. What is needed is just an even playing field for all. I love everything about the sport, except the Bull*&#t politics played with the Tour.

With the latest revelations, it is obvious that the sensationalism that that was created by L'Equipe about doping is killing the Tour, maybe ASO should get the message. It's a race, I want to follow a race, not a giant story about doping which is all they seem to care about. This holier than thou crap is getting very very old. I was reading a story about FDJ the other day and of course the team was noted as riding clean because it was a French team. How is that relevant?? Just means they're slower, not necessary clean.

Nothing any of us can do will change anything. I don't get people getting so worked up about Lance coming back. Anger just raises blood pressure and shortens life. Regardless of your point of view here, there's some element of entertainment to be had. I'm just going to watch what happens.

You're right. All we can do is hop that lance gets popped this time. Wouldn't that be sweet. OJ finally got his comeuppance. Lance's "I'm beyond criticism 'cuase I beat cancer" shtick may once and for all be revealed for the farce it is.

Wow, Paul (http://cyclingfansanonymous.blogspot.com/2008/09/kimmage-says-it-all.html). Tell us how you really feel.

How incredibly naive. :rolleyes:

... Brad

Motivation shmotivation. When he retired it was to "spend more time with his kids." By which he apparently meant "date a series of thin blonds." I lost huge amounts of respect for him over this apparent bit of double speak.

The thing you have to remember is that a lot of guys honestly retire from sports, or high octane professions, only to find their life is missing something. Until/unless they adjust to that, a lot of times they wind up falling into other pursuits that can fill some of that void. That's why street drugs are high on the list of mistakes people make after their careers. Lances divorce, I admittedly don't know much about, but will say, he could be doing a lot worse things in terms of his image, and for the future of his children than dating a series of thin blonds.

Regardless of how you feel about the guy, whether you believe he doped or not, as long as his name is in the public eye in a positive light, that just means that much more money for cancer research. Whether it's about his legacy, his ego, whatever, the cancer research money is still a good thing.

The thing you have to remember is that a lot of guys honestly retire from sports, or high octane professions, only to find their life is missing something. Until/unless they adjust to that, a lot of times they wind up falling into other pursuits that can fill some of that void. That's why street drugs are high on the list of mistakes people make after their careers. Lances divorce, I admittedly don't know much about, but will say, he could be doing a lot worse things in terms of his image, and for the future of his children than dating a series of thin blonds.

Regardless of how you feel about the guy, whether you believe he doped or not, as long as his name is in the public eye in a positive light, that just means that much more money for cancer research. Whether it's about his legacy, his ego, whatever, the cancer research money is still a good thing.

Maybe, maybe not. Every other story is going to have the second headline "drugs?" or "DRUGS!"
My mom's first question when she heard about his comeback was "did he get a better doctor?"

If he wins the Giro, other people will be asking that. If he abandons (because that's been his style with races that have gone badly) people will use that to say he was doping back in the day.

A man many claim is dirty on a team many think is dirty... There must be better ways to support cancer research than that.

Maybe, maybe not. Every other story is going to have the second headline "drugs?" or "DRUGS!"
My mom's first question when she heard about his comeback was "did he get a better doctor?"

If he wins the Giro, other people will be asking that. If he abandons (because that's been his style with races that have gone badly) people will use that to say he was doping back in the day.

A man many claim is dirty on a team many think is dirty... There must be better ways to support cancer research than that.

Bonnie Ford (http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?id=3672174) thinks so too:



Q: Being an elite bike rider is something that takes a lot of time every day. You're a member of a team and that takes a certain amount of time. There's physical risk involved in racing. Your comeback has stirred up a lot of old stuff in the public and media that could be distracting. Why is it better for you to be on the bike to promote your cause than off the bike where -- as has been chronicled -- you have access to anyone you want, practically, in the world and --

A: Because it's an international initiative. If it was a domestic one or a Texas one, we've done that. We continue to maintain those initiatives. But it was our view that we would be more effective if I were on the bike, racing internationally.

Q: The time you devote to being an athlete is time you can't spend lobbying.

A: No, but it doesn't always have to be me. [The foundation] is an organization of 70 people, and 10 working on the international plan. That, in and of itself, is a big team. It's not just me. I have great support, a great team, great visionaries and great people working for me. I feel confident we'll be effective.

This has always been more than the cancer cause for Lance.

You're right. All we can do is hop that lance gets popped this time. Wouldn't that be sweet. OJ finally got his comeuppance. Lance's "I'm beyond criticism 'cuase I beat cancer" shtick may once and for all be revealed for the farce it is.

Wow. You take an unnatural amount of satisfaction in contemplating the demise of others.

Regardless of how you feel about the guy, whether you believe he doped or not, as long as his name is in the public eye in a positive light, that just means that much more money for cancer research. Whether it's about his legacy, his ego, whatever, the cancer research money is still a good thing.

But the racing and the research are not so independent of each other.

Do a little thought experiment with me. Take Barry Bonds and Lance. Both pursued one of their sport's most hallowed records during eras that for each sport were regarded as "the drug years." Both faced numerous drug accusation but were never conclusively proved guilty with lab tests. However, each has a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence against them that (under objective consideration) makes their innocence fall somewhere between implausible and laughable.

Here are the differences. Lance is white, charismatic, and does high-profile charity work. Bonds is black, surly, and has no high-profile charity. Do those differences have anything to do with doping? No, but the court of public opinion makes Bonds a juiced villain, and Lance a saint who triumphed through nothing but working harder than the rest. :roflmao2:

I'm not trying to say lance doesn't believe in his charity and that it doesn't do good things, but you have to also recognize it as a convenient alibi to his public image. The double use isn't lost on Lance, for sure. It's not ALL about altruism, nothing is.

Wow. You take an unnatural amount of satisfaction in contemplating the demise of others.

No, demise for it's own sake i take no pleasure in. And sports issues aside, Lance's charity does benefit those in need.

Read my above post and you will see that I especially dislike Lance because he has so calculatingly manipulated his public image.

Read my above post and you will see that I especially dislike Lance because he has so calculatingly manipulated his public image.

And why do you think that is a bad thing? Are you using the word "manipulated" to denote some underhanded sleazeball method of presenting an image other than what he truly is to the general public? If so, I think you need to back that up with concrete evidence that his "public image" is not what it appears to be.

I would gather that most any celebrity or sports figure manipulates his image. They want to present themselves in the best light possible. If this means hiding a few meager skeletons in the closet so be it. OK, you're going to counter than drug use is hardly a skeleton, and I'm going to counter that you need to show me and the rest of the world that there is more to Lance than rumors and innuendo. Last time I checked, he (and I) have the same constitutional right of being innocent until proven guilty. And that doesn't mean in the left wing cycling media either. As in politics, the cycling press is full of people trying to make a name for themselves by digging up every piece of insignificant bit of dirt possible on the guy. Who really cares if he might have a relative who once was late on a rent payment?

Yeah, I know stuff like that is not on the same scale as drug use, but to use a common phrase, "Show me the money (drug tests)." Otherwise, you're just another dog in the long line, barking up the wrong tree.

...Here are the differences. Lance is white, charismatic, and does high-profile charity work. Bonds is black, surly, and has no high-profile charity. Do those differences have anything to do with doping? No, but the court of public opinion makes Bonds a juiced villain, and Lance a saint who triumphed through nothing but working harder than the rest. :roflmao2:

Race has nothing to do with it, Bonds is looked upon with scorn cause he is a pinhead through and through. Lance has media savvy and Bonds does not. I took my kids to some pre-season games in Florida once and I watch how he dealt with the media and public. Part of the beauty of the grapefruit leagues is how the players and coaches can schmooze with the public, but not him, he just walked by people and would cuss at the media. Just a class act don't you think? No, Bonds earned his rep on his own and deserve every minute of it, right up to the point where he does not get into the Hall of Fame. If he does get in, it will take a couple of years, but he wont be first ballot, first year.

No, demise for it's own sake i take no pleasure in. And sports issues aside, Lance's charity does benefit those in need.

Read my above post and you will see that I especially dislike Lance because he has so calculatingly manipulated his public image.

I suppose with anyone with a predisposition to believe one thing or another will have little trouble finding something that supports their point of view - not just here, but in just about anything. I think I may be an anomaly, in that I follow professional road cycling, and I also hold quite a neutral view on the topic of "Lance". If there's good solid proof that he juiced, then sure - let's set matters to right. Without that proof though, I have to give him (or anyone else for that matter) the benefit of the doubt.

i read kimmage's book: rough ride, and it was entertaining enough. he certainly was no winner, but a good whiner.I too read Kimmage's book, and I took note of his avoidance of answering the question
as to whether or not he had any knowledge of his fellow countrymen, Sean Kelly and Stephen
Roach (two of Ireland’s most successful international bike racers), having ever doped. While I agree
with you here--he did strike me as whiner, the real damage to his credibility as a insider and as a
crusader against doping is, in my opinion, his refusal (as far as I know) to cough up an definitive
answer as to whether or not he has knowledge of two of Ireland's national heroes and his former
friends/teammates having ever used illegal performance enhancing products.
One more self-proclaimed genius that I wouldn't let deliver newspapers. If he followed the 1999 L'Equipe ragsheet expose', you would follow it through the facts and find out that EPO, if it ever existed in LA's samples, it would have been totally obliterated by their freezing and the time period. So said the individual who invented the drug in the first place.This is a first: I had not ever before read of LA's 1999 urine samples testing positive for EPO.
I did read that his samples did test positive for cortisone, but he was given dispensation from
Tour organizers because he had used a doctor’s prescribed cream to help with saddle-sores. Also,
I do not recall ever reading before that "George Hincapie was exposed as a doper by Emma O’Reilly."

As far as LA's return: he's never tested "dirty," so I see no good reason to thwart or bemoan his
return to professional cycling. I'd be very surprised if he managed a top-ten finish in the Tour and
I'd bet large sums of money that he will not make it atop the podium; a three year lay-off is a long time.