Fight! fight! fight! fight!

stuf

Cycling News wrote:

Armstrong and Kimmage face off in California

Lance Armstrong faced a difficult moment in the Tour of California press conference Thursday in Sacramento, California. The seven-time Tour de France winner responded to Paul Kimmage's question about the return of "non-repentant" dopers.

"You've spoke recently about the return of Ivan Basso and Floyd Landis, who have returned after their suspensions, compared to David Millar – that they should be welcomed back like he was. But there was one obvious difference in that Millar admitted his doping whereas these guys have admitted to nothing. What is it about these guys that you seem to admire so much?" asked Kimmage, a reporter with the Sunday Times of London.

Seventeen riders were present to kick-off the stage race, February 14 to 22. Many of the media's questions were about Armstrong's cancer message or his views on racing in the Tour of California, but the most intense moment came with the second question, from Kimmage

Armstrong prefaced his answer with the following statement: "When I decided to come back, for what I think is a very noble reason, you said, 'The cancer has been in remission for four years, our cancer has now returned' – meaning me, that I am the cancer!

"So it goes without saying, no we are not going to sit down for an interview. You are not worth the chair you are sitting on with a statement like that, with a disease that touches everyone around the world."

Armstrong went on to answer Kimmage's question. "You have to consider what has happened to David [Millar], who I admire a lot [and] who was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Is it heroic that he has now confessed? Some would say so. I applaud him that he is back and I hope that he is very successful."

"Floyd [Landis], on the other hand, there is a lot of evidence against him and there is a lot of evidence in his favour. Floyd does not believe he is guilty, so to appease people like you he can't confess."

Armstrong explained his admiration for his fellow cyclists as men and that all men make mistakes.

"I'm not sure I will ever forgive you for that statement. And I'm not sure that anybody around the world affected by this disease will forgive you."

Kimmage got Thursday's last word in what will be an ongoing battle.

"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."

Kimmage, a former professional racer from the 1980s, reported extensively on drug use within cycling – including his award-winning book Rough Ride.

Check back for Cyclingnews' full coverage of the Tour of California press conference.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/feb09/feb13news2

ROK ON

Paul Kimmage needs LA, in the same way that Scrap Saturday needed Charles Haughey.

scottreynolds

From Paul Kimmages perspective I'm not sure that cycling can ever be cleaned up regardless of what anyone says.

Diarmuid

ROK ON wrote: »

Paul Kimmage needs LA, in the same way that Scrap Saturday needed Charles Haughey.

Kimmage is not just cycling writer anymore. He's a pretty accomplished sports writer. He survived the past 3 years just fine.

decrrrrrr

Video Link to it: http://www.news10.net/video/default.aspx?aid=70159

Does not have Kimmage's last comment though..

Lumen

Putting aside his personal medical history, I don't really understand Lance's campaigning against cancer.

I mean, it's not exactly a forgotten disease. It kills about a third of people in advanced industrial countries. Massive amounts of research are undertaken to develop treatments.

It would make more sense for him to be campaigning against heart disease, since he might inspire all the fat people to get off their arses and get fit, which could make a significant difference to health outcomes.

Just seems like a vanity project.

BH2008

I completely agree with you there Lumen,good point about heart disease. When LA first spoke of his comeback, he made some quote about how he was going to "beat cancer"....how Lance?? by cycling?? looks like your retirement is a long way off then....I'm not trying to be flippant about what is obviously a terrible disease which has inflicted pain and loss on many people, but its a bit like Gordon Ramsey setting out to solve the economic crisis.....it's not your area dude! In fact I think comments like that are just down right patronising to every Cancer research organisation and scientist that are actually trying to find an actual cure. On Paul Kimmage...top journalist who is a thorn in the side of these alleged dopers,not many people would have the balls to stand up to the LA publicity machine like he does...fair play to the guy!

niceonetom

"I am here to fight this disease. I am here so I don't have to deal with it, 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."

what a raging narcissist.

there are some definite messianic overtones to the way he sees himself and his "mission". has he not passed through the gates of hell and returned to save us all? are we not grateful? we should be kissing the hem of his cloak maillot.

fair play to kimmage for having the sheer brass neck to challenge him; he-who-must-not-be-named obviously needs to give his minions more regular beatings. "how did kimmage get into the front row?! you know the rules: sycophants only!!!"

BH2008

Before I go any further on LA rants....I prob should declare I bought a pair of armstrong radars...the shame...in my defence I was in the airport going on honeymoon, got a decent price and they are a lot lower key than the flash white framed alternatives!

uberwolf

Cyclists on dope (like all athletes who are doping) operate under a different set of ethics. Those ethics are not acceptable to the viewing public, and rightly so.

But that warped ethical code exists. I once lost by half a wheel to a chap back from a 2 year drug ban earlier that week. A good friend received his world games bronze by post, the gold medal having been disqualified after the fact. So I've been there and I'm not trying to excuse it.

That's my preface to this...

I had a lot of admiration for Lance when I was racing, and watched his first tour agog, I bought his bike, I had his gear. And I am now jaundiced by the almost inevitable presumption. I mean, how could he not have been? Much like I was saddened watching Landis THAT day. My God he had wings, it was awe inspring, especially having watched it the day before. But you just knew, and tried to suspend your disbelief to try and enjoy. Critical faculties clicking in later.

None the less in that environment, where it's ok, I have no qualms with Lance's campaign. He suffered terribly with his disease, and the main achievement for me is the awareness he has raised. It's now ok to talk about our balls (sorry caroline_ie, et al ) and his impact there is unmeasurable. And that is worthwhile.

niceonetom

uberwolf wrote: »

It's now ok to talk about our balls (sorry caroline_ie, et al

al's never had a problem talking about his balls. really. there are things that cannot be unheard .

Diarmuid

Lumen wrote: »

Putting aside his personal medical history, I don't really understand Lance's campaigning against cancer.

You're not supposed to. It's "against cancer", that means you can criticise, doubt or utter a negative word

TinyExplosions

niceonetom wrote: »

al's never had a problem talking about his balls. really. there are things that cannot be unheard .

You leave me out of this!

Slideshowbob

uberwolf wrote: »

Cyclists on dope (like all athletes who are doping) operate under a different set of ethics. Those ethics are not acceptable to the viewing public, and rightly so.

But that warped ethical code exists. I once lost by half a wheel to a chap back from a 2 year drug ban earlier that week. A good friend received his world games bronze by post, the gold medal having been disqualified after the fact. So I've been there and I'm not trying to excuse it.

That's my preface to this...

I had a lot of admiration for Lance when I was racing, and watched his first tour agog, I bought his bike, I had his gear. And I am now jaundiced by the almost inevitable presumption. I mean, how could he not have been? Much like I was saddened watching Landis THAT day. My God he had wings, it was awe inspring, especially having watched it the day before. But you just knew, and tried to suspend your disbelief to try and enjoy. Critical faculties clicking in later.

None the less in that environment, where it's ok, I have no qualms with Lance's campaign. He suffered terribly with his disease, and the main achievement for me is the awareness he has raised. It's now ok to talk about our balls (sorry caroline_ie, et al ) and his impact there is unmeasurable. And that is worthwhile.

Uberwolf - can u enlighten us on the dopers ethics please? Perhaps by public disclosure there would be understanding etc which may in turn help to counter doping in sport

zzzzzzzz

Kimmage talks about the press conference etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6Ai6t6R1_w

xz

there's a lot of presumption of guilt of doping against LA, and some conspiracy theory evidence, but until he is found unequivocally guilty,or admits to it (that aint gonna happen), I am personally willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but, having said that, another of America's golden athletes, Carl Lewis, was found out eventually.

uberwolf

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Uberwolf - can u enlighten us on the dopers ethics please? Perhaps by public disclosure there would be understanding etc which may in turn help to counter doping in sport

It's down to an (unacceptable) culture IMO. Where people slide into using drugs, through it's apparent acceptability amongst their peers. The people who have most influence on them use, so why wouldn't they (rhetorical question).

Does that answer your question?

What this has to do with Armstrong, is that whilst his fame may be ill gotten, but I think his 'campaign', which has been questioned earlier in the thread, is worthwhile and has brought testicular cancer out of the shadows. Awareness and early diagnosis are key to surviving most forms of cancer, and lifes will have been saved as a consequence of his campaign.

Funkyzeit

Lance " Sorry who are you" He knew well who he was....

Whatever your opinion of Lance in terms of doping (and IMO I certainly think he was on the soup) I think he's the personality of a wet weekend....

Kimmage remarks about Lance/cancer was an obvious metaphor and to see Lance on his high horse is galling....

paddy's hill

Agree totally. Lance knows very well who Paul Kimmage is. That was supposed to be an insult to Paul, Lance has done this before pretending not to know who people are. Paul used the word cancer as a metaphor and Lance is now trying to twist it to detract from the question Paul asked, about his admiration for convicted dopers. I can't believe that a clean athlete would be happy at the return of unrepentant dopers.

E@gle.

kimmage is going to be in for a tough time i reckon in california, Hes not in France and hes in armstrongs back yard he wont get away with them kind of allegations over there.

Chips Lovell

Kimmage is really feeling the love from the Lance fan-boys on Bikeforums.

DirkVoodoo

Good post in that Forum Tonto. I found this guys post to be alarmingly "face-palmish":

Yes, but this is bigger than bike racing.

Good god. I didn't feel like clicking the link yesterday. This blows my f***ing mind! There is absolutely no imaginable circumstance to justify a statement like that. Mr. Kimmage surely knows a few people who have had cancer. How does that statement feel to them?

I feel a hate for this guy that I have rarely felt in my life. I think he ranks right up there with terrorists and child molesters. I don't know anything about this guys career aside from what I just read on Wikipedia, but after reading about his book, it seems obvious that his career is based on sensationalism instead of any journalistic substance.

My respect to Lance Armstrong. It's hard to decide which is more impressive between overcoming cancer, winning seven tours, establishing a multimillion dollar cancer foundation, or having the restraint to keep himself from leaping over the table and beating guys like Mr. Kimmage to death. I honestly believe it's the latter. I would feel absolutely no sympathy if he or anyone else had chosen to do so.

So, he hates cancer and all of the misery it brings, but he would beat a man (who he admits he knows nothing about) to death for insulting lance.

E@gle.

el tonto wrote: »

Kimmage is really feeling the love from the Lance fan-boys on Bikeforums.

The best part of that thread is when they refer to ireland being part of britain

Chips Lovell

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Good post in that Forum Tonto. I found this guys post to be alarmingly "face-palmish":

Yes, that was a choice one alright.

E@gle. wrote: »

The best part of that thread is when they refer to ireland being part of britain

And it just went downhill from there.

uberwolf

folks (and this isn't a response to the most recent posts particularly)

can people choose their words carefully.

Lance Armstrong has never tested positive, and is therefore not a drug user. To suggest or state otherwise might be considered libelous.

I'm not trying to limit conversation, just be conscious of what you say.

niceonetom

holy crap - that thread on bikeforums was so stupid it actually gave me a nosebleed.

i'm never going back there.

titan18

E@gle. wrote: »

The best part of that thread is when they refer to ireland being part of britain

It doesn't say that in the thread.One poster says that Kimmage is British like Millar, not that Ireland is part of Britain, a lot of posters after that corrected him.

Armstrong has never tested positive for drug use, he has been tested a lot and will be now that he's back, and has never tested positive.

I've lost a lot of respect for Kimmage after that.Saying that the "cancer is back" was a disgraceful thing to say to Armstrong, and disrespectful to anyone who suffers from cancer.Armstrong was right to react like he did.

Also, Armstrong says to Kimmage who are you again, and after Kimmage replies saying that he didnt know what he looked like, and wanted to make sure that it was Kimmage.He doesnt say to Kimmage "Who are you?" and act completely as if he doesnt know the guy.

Also, to ye saying that Lance shouldn't do this cancer stuff.Why not?Is it wrong for a famous person to help out like this cos Armstrong has more than likely done more than any of the researchers looking for cures for it.Who funds those researchers?A celebrity getting behind a charity, donating to the charity and cos of their involvement, people donating to the charity funds cancer research.A few years ago, every 2nd person had bought those bands for cancer.

Chips Lovell

titan18 wrote: »

...he has been tested a lot and will be now that he's back..

He's going to be tested a bit less now.

Lumen

I really don't understand the sensitivity about the cancer metaphor. One of my grandmothers died from cancer. So what? What if she'd died from sticking jellybeans up her nose? Would that give me the right to be offended by jellybean metaphors? FFS.

That said, I don't think anything offends me, so maybe I'm "special".

I've bookmarked the Venn diagram though, even if it is a bit lacking in footnotes.

eta: OK, maybe this offends me. And dead baby jokes. A bit.

titan18

el tonto wrote: »

He's going to be tested a bit less now.

He's still doing going to be tested more than any other rider.He'll be tested with the Astana team, and in every race he goes to, he'll be more than likely tested more than any other rider.Also, if he was having his own personal testing done,wouldn't the chances that he'd cover it up higher.

If he did have the personal testing done,ye'd all point to it next year and say he was covering up positive tests

Diarmuid

titan18 wrote: »

He's still doing going to be tested more than any other rider.He'll be tested with the Astana team, and in every race he goes to, he'll be more than likely tested more than any other rider.

YAWN...

If you believe Lance competed clean 99 - 2005, fine, that's your prerogative.

But please don't trot out the same old lines we've heard a million times before. Instead explain the Simeoni incident, how he has did the 2nd and 4th fast times up Alp d'Huez when all the others in the top 10 were doping, how his whole team managed to be tested at the very limit of the haematocrit level during the TdF, why he was working with Michelle Ferrari years after the guy was proven cheat, why he defended Landis, a proven doper, so vociferously etc..

uberwolf

Diarmuid wrote: »

YAWN...

If you believe Lance competed clean 99 - 2005, fine, that's your prerogative.

But please don't trot out the same old lines we've heard a million times before. Instead explain the Simeoni incident, how he has did the 2nd and 4th fast times up Alp d'Huez when all the others in the top 10 were doping, how his whole team managed to be tested at the very limit of the haematocrit level during the TdF, why he was working with Michelle Ferrari years after the guy was proven cheat, why he defended Landis, a proven doper, so vociferously etc..

It can't be explained by a rational cycling fan. But he is clean until proven otherwise.

I am closing this thread for the evening. I'll review tomorrow if anyone cares to PM me with material relevant to the OP