Lance Armstrong v Paul Kimmage

jdt101

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUAO7xmNKeA

Check out the above link. Any thoughts?

penexpers

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055487823

niceonetom

seeing as the first thread was locked...

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

good to see that kimmage isn't being written off as a cook or a crank by everyone in the states.

aren't youtube comments gas? "50,000 dollars for the first one to kill Paul Kimmage" is one that i thought particularly charming.

kenmc

niceonetom wrote: »

aren't youtube comments gas?

I quite like the 'Lance Pharmstrong' one - hadn't heard that before

Slideshowbob

Some interesting accusations flung at Armstrong via the You Tube viewers' comments.

Maybe You Tube are not sensitive to accusations of libel.

Blazer

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Some interesting accusations flung at Armstrong via the You Tube viewers' comments.

Maybe You Tube are not sensitive to accusations of libel.

Maybe they just have more balls than the boards admins.
Can you imagine if MCD came to youtube and threatened them? They'd still be laughing their asses off.

penexpers

Mathew Reilly wrote: »

Can you imagine if MCD came to youtube and threatened them? They'd still be laughing their asses off.

This is waay off topic, but you do see plenty of videos removed from youtube because of copyright infringement.

DirkVoodoo

It would be almost impossible for them to filter comments on youtube given the shear volume of content that passes through it everyday. Filtering content is probably done in a different way, I'm afraid I don't know the ins and outs of youtube.

Frankly I am glad for the moderatorship on boards (most of it anyway) and find some of the comments on youtube particularly ridiculous.

But hey, if you don't like them then don't read them, just look at the videos and move on.

Copyright infringement is a little different to libel also. They can probably claim such videos are "newsworthy" or some such excuse.

Lumen

I suspect the average age of a Youtuber is about 14; whether that's physical or mental age I'm not sure.

I'm also not sure which is the least scary: being threatened by a Youtuber or by a cyclist. The combination of the two is possibly the least scary proposition ever.

dave2pvd

niceonetom wrote: »

good to see that kimmage isn't being written off as a cook or a crank by everyone in the states.

Armstrong isn't the demi-God over here that you might think.

Go have a search on roadbikereview to get a sampling. A lot of the US cycling/racing community see Armstrong for what he is.

Kimmage's compliments were either slammed or celebrated, depending on whether the posters in question were Lance fanboys or Pharmstrong believers.

Of course, if you ask the general ESPN/Sports Illustrated populace, LA is a hero.

Raam

dave2pvd wrote: »

Of course, if you ask the general ESPN/Sports Illustrated populace, LA is a hero.

Bonnie Ford writes for ESPN. I find her work interesting. Although maybe the ESPN populace ain't reading her articles!

dave2pvd

Raam wrote: »

Bonnie Ford writes for ESPN. I find her work interesting. Although maybe the ESPN populace ain't reading her articles!

Well how about that. Maybe I was doing the couch potato types a disservice with my derogatory comments.

Now where did I put that remote.....

Trojan

Raam wrote: »

Bonnie Ford writes for ESPN. I find her work interesting. Although maybe the ESPN populace ain't reading her articles!

Interesting. Here's what I see as "the problem with Armstrong":

Bonnie Ford article wrote:

[...]he also had confrontational exchanges with two journalists -- former cycling pro and vocal anti-doping columnist Paul Kimmage, an Irish writer for the Sunday Times of London, and Juliet Macur of The New York Times. Kimmage asked a provocative question that involved Landis. Macur was minding her own business and hadn't even asked a question, but Armstrong was irritated with her about another story.

Armstrong goes out of his way to be confrontational on people who are expressing any kind of opinion that disagrees or threatens him or his mates. Ref: S18, TDF04. Doesn't make it easy to believe him or side with him.

TinyExplosions

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Some interesting accusations flung at Armstrong via the You Tube viewers' comments.

Maybe You Tube are not sensitive to accusations of libel.

Or maybe they run with the idea that things posted in comments on youtube are gossip, and so not covered by libel laws (I'm fairly sure I'm accurate there). I don't know why boards isn't covered in the same manner

Trojan

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Or maybe they run with the idea that things posted in comments on youtube are gossip, and so not covered by libel laws (I'm fairly sure I'm accurate there). I don't know why boards isn't covered in the same manner

Because Google has $160 BILLION to pulverise frivolous lawsuits.

Eoin D

I don't really know the story behind Kimmage, he really got the last word in there at that interview but I still think the cancer statement was very very below the belt. That's obviously going to upset someone who suffered so much.

I'm reading Lances book at the moment and he seems quite admirable, if not horrendously cocky, my first impressions of Paul Kimmage is that he's a man with a chip on his shoulder. I'd like to read his book to get a more informed decision though.

What exactly did Kimmage say about Roche and Kelly that was considered a slur? Just saw it mentioned on wikipedia

TinyExplosions

Eoin D wrote: »

I don't really know the story behind Kimmage, he really got the last word in there at that interview but I still think the cancer statement was very very below the belt. That's obviously going to upset someone who suffered so much.

I'm reading Lances book at the moment and he seems quite admirable, if not horrendously cocky, my first impressions of Paul Kimmage is that he's a man with a chip on his shoulder. I'd like to read his book to get a more informed decision though.

What exactly did Kimmage say about Roche and Kelly that was considered a slur? Just saw it mentioned on wikipedia

Here's a link to his complete article that caused all the trouble. While it may be below the belt slightly, I do think Kimmage has a point in what he says, and if Lance can bring up cancer at every tiny opportunity, why can't Kimmage -as has been said before, Armstrong doesn't have copyright on the word, and just about everybody knows someone who's suffered the disease.

Kimmage does have a massive chip on his shoulder, I'd never think to defend that point, but I feel its more at how he sees the sport he loved, and raced in go down the tubes with the back tracking and coverups and general collusion into doping.

As for the Kelly/Roche thing -simple fact is he said nothing about them at all. The problem was that his book implies that doping was by far the rule rather than the exception in the Peloton, and when asked outright (I think on the Late late Show) if he thought that Roche and Kelly were involved he refused to say either way. This was seen as a silent confirmation

zzzzzzzz

Eoin D wrote: »

I don't really know the story behind Kimmage, he really got the last word in there at that interview but I still think the cancer statement was very very below the belt. That's obviously going to upset someone who suffered so much.

I'm reading Lances book at the moment and he seems quite admirable, if not horrendously cocky, my first impressions of Paul Kimmage is that he's a man with a chip on his shoulder. I'd like to read his book to get a more informed decision though.

What exactly did Kimmage say about Roche and Kelly that was considered a slur? Just saw it mentioned on wikipedia

I've a copy of kimmages book if you want it

tunney

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Some interesting accusations flung at Armstrong via the You Tube viewers' comments.

Maybe You Tube are not sensitive to accusations of libel.

Isn't there something about libel though that it its factual its not libel?

I would love to see Pharmstrong try and sue. Amazingly he left David Walsh alone over "From lance to landis". A must read for anyone with an Armstrong man crush.

blorg

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Or maybe they run with the idea that things posted in comments on youtube are gossip, and so not covered by libel laws (I'm fairly sure I'm accurate there). I don't know why boards isn't covered in the same manner

That's not the case, Youtube comments could indeed be libellous but Google would not be responsible based on its status as a "common carrier" that does not edit the content of the site before publication (a newspaper does edit and so _is_ directly liable for content they publish.) Rather the person posting the comment is liable and Google could be compelled by a court to identify that person so that an action could be taken against them.

8.3 You understand and agree that you are solely responsible for your own User Submissions and the consequences of posting or publishing them. YouTube does not endorse any User Submission or any opinion, recommendation, or advice expressed therein, and YouTube expressly disclaims any and all liability in connection with User Submissions.

Example of a Finnish kid convicted of libel for a video posted on YouTube (the title rather than the video was considered libellous.)

It is not so clear however in this jurisdiction that websites or ISPs have this same protection and indeed a landmark 1999 decision in the UK decided that they don't. Along with that, as Trojan says Boards doesn't have the billions to pursue a test case.

tunney

Eoin D wrote: »

I don't really know the story behind Kimmage, he really got the last word in there at that interview but I still think the cancer statement was very very below the belt. That's obviously going to upset someone who suffered so much.

I'm reading Lances book at the moment and he seems quite admirable, if not horrendously cocky, my first impressions of Paul Kimmage is that he's a man with a chip on his shoulder. I'd like to read his book to get a more informed decision though.

What exactly did Kimmage say about Roche and Kelly that was considered a slur? Just saw it mentioned on wikipedia

Armstrong man crush alert.

You've read Amstrong's biography, or one of them. Read more around the doping in the pro peleton and you'll see that the comparision of armstrong to a cancer is a very valid one.

Roche? isn't he credited with introducing EPO to the pro peleton.

Eoin D

aidan.offbeat wrote: »

I've a copy of kimmages book if you want it

Cheers, I'm off exploring the world in a few weeks though and I don't think I'd get it back to you so I might just pick it up on my travels but thanks!

tunney wrote: »

Armstrong man crush alert.

Ah I wouldn't go that far. I'll happily admit I don't know the full story and will try and read up more on it but at the moment I'm on the Lance side. I don't think his coming back was 'two steps backwards'. I'm just a bit cynical when people diss successful people.

I'm not saying I believe that Armstrong never doped now, don't get me wrong and I may very well switch sides when I read more about it!

petethedrummer

aidan.offbeat wrote: »

I've a copy of kimmages book if you want it

I'm reading it for the second time at the moment, I read it years ago and though it was only ok. This time after reading from lance to landis, breaking the chain, game of shadows etc.. and knowing alot more abut cycling, I can appreciate what a great book it is.

Eoin D, have a listen to these, http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055363140&highlight=walsh+lemond
The Walsh interviews are basically a condensed version of the 'From Lance to Landis' Book.

Poncherello

In Walshe's book 'From lance to Landis' did he intimate (with all the anecdotal stories of guys Armstrong rode with early on becoming very ill later in life) that Armstrong may have in fact caught cancer because of all the crap he was putting in his body/being told to put in his body back in the 80s when he was a young lad ??
Please note I am asking the question and not making a statement.

DirkVoodoo

Ooh, Aidan could I borrow it off ya?

I don't like this taboo over the word cancer, I mean its perfectly acceptable to call something as poisonous to cycling like doping a "cancer", even if he chose his words because Armstrong was returning along with Basso and Landis.

And his war on cancer is very admirable, but the fact is that a lot of us will have to deal with cancer despite Lance's best efforts. Like that chap in "The Wire" says about the war on drugs not being a war because "wars end".

Eoin D

petethedrummer wrote: »

Eoin D, have a listen to these, http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055363140&highlight=walsh+lemond
The Walsh interviews are basically a condensed version of the 'From Lance to Landis' Book.

Will do, cheers!

petethedrummer

Poncherello wrote: »

In Walshe's book 'From lance to Landis' did he intimate (with all the anecdotal stories of guys Armstrong rode with early on becoming very ill later in life) that Armstrong may have in fact caught cancer because of all the crap he was putting in his body/being told to put in his body back in the 80s when he was a young lad ??.

He said somewhere in the book that there is an unverified belief among some doctors that steroids and HGH will accelerate the growth of cancers, not cause them. Or something to that effect. It was a bit of an innuendo to put in something that isn't medically proven. I'll dig the book out later and find the section.

Raam

A huge dose of Armstrong man crush here: http://thechurchofthebigring.com/scripture/smack-down

Chips Lovell

Leave Lance alone!

Raam

All hail Lance

Running Bing

Its my personal belief that Lance was 100% on drugs (and personally I think its quite naive to think otherwise) but I think the comment by Kimmage was below the belt. If he had said it about anyone else I would write it off as a hyperbolic figure of speech but the fact he said it about Armstrong I see it as a direct reference to the disease.


Anyway I can see why Kimmage would be bitter. Imagine your life dream and ambition going down the toilet just because you refuse to cheat when everybody else is. Im sure thats the way he see's it.


I find the world of pro cycling fascinating though. What would people recommend as the best book to read first, rough ride, from lance to landis or something else?

petethedrummer

For a relentless blow by blow account of drug taking/administering I'd recommend 'Breaking the Chain' by Willy Voet. It's only a short book and I've read loads about drugs in sport, but it made go holy sh!t.

rough ride, contains lots of Kimmage's other experiences as a cyclist. From lance to landis has a lot of personal testimony, hearsay(dunno if that's the right word) and jibes at Lance's forceful personality. Breaking the Chain is just drugs from start to finish.

Signal_ rabbit

Raam wrote: »

All hail Lance

Gosh Lance Armstrong! #sigh#

pgibbo

tunney wrote: »

Isn't there something about libel though that it its factual its not libel?

I would love to see Pharmstrong try and sue. Amazingly he left David Walsh alone over "From lance to landis". A must read for anyone with an Armstrong man crush.

Anyone know where I can get this book? I tried local bookshops and Amazon don't have it in stock. I ordered from them back in Novemebr and still no sign of it. Cheers

petethedrummer

you can get it from these amazon sellers: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/034549962X/ref=dp_olp_1

I got mine from Aprohead. Though it was a couple of quid cheaper when I bought it.

pgibbo

petethedrummer wrote: »

you can get it from these amazon sellers: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/034549962X/ref=dp_olp_1

I got mine from Aprohead. Though it was a couple of quid cheaper when I bought it.

Cheers Pete. Just ordered it this morning and it is shipped already. For some reason I was weary of the sellers on amazon. Seeing as they come recommended it's good enough for me. Cheers for that.

I started reading Bad Blood last night. So far so good. Enjoyable read.

petethedrummer

pgibbo wrote: »

Cheers Pete. Just ordered it this morning and it is shipped already. For some reason I was weary of the sellers on amazon. Seeing as they come recommended it's good enough for me. Cheers for that.

I haven't had any trouble from any of them yet. I think they're a fair bit more trustworthy than ebay sellers.

Raam

pgibbo wrote: »

I started reading Bad Blood last night. So far so good. Enjoyable read.

I'm half way through this at the moment, not a bad read.

blorg

I have bought books from that Amazon seller, they are reliable.

Hermy

tunney wrote: »

I would love to see Pharmstrong try and sue. Amazingly he left David Walsh alone over "From lance to landis". A must read for anyone with an Armstrong man crush.

Was that not in relation to L.A. Confidential?
There was a link to an English translation of this book via Wikipedia but the link is no longer working.

zzzzzzzz

Hermy wrote: »

Was that not in relation to L.A. Confidential?
There was a link to an English translation of this book via Wikipedia but the link is no longer working.

I have a pdf of it - if anyone wants it just PM me

pgibbo

petethedrummer wrote: »

I haven't had any trouble from any of them yet. I think they're a fair bit more trustworthy than ebay sellers.

Book arrived in the post yesterday. As new condition. Looks like I was wrong to overlook these sellers in the past!

Signal_ rabbit

Just finished Rough Ride and although I starting reading it with a view to slam the man, I found the book to be a very good read and an honest account of PK's experiences.

I didn't see any reason for Roach and Kelly to get upset as he has nothing but praise for them, he thought SR an icon and an honour to ride with, but ironically SR was found guilty of EPO in 1993 wasn't he?

As a major Lance fan [deep sigh] I do feel that if doping was that rife it would have been extremely hard for him to stay out of it, but would like to believe he did/does.

Just about to read 'From Lance to Landis'..............!

penexpers

Signal_ rabbit wrote: »

I didn't see any reason for Roach and Kelly to get upset as he has nothing but praise for them, he thought SR an icon and an honour to ride with, but ironically SR was found guilty of EPO in 1993 wasn't he?

A judge in 2004 found that Roche probably used EPO in the early 90s but he couldn't be charged because it was outside the statue of limitations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Roche#Alleged_drug_use

petethedrummer

Signal_ rabbit wrote: »

I didn't see any reason for Roach and Kelly to get upset

I'm open to correction but I don't think Kelly every displayed any public signs of upset.

Signal_ rabbit wrote: »

As a major Lance fan..........Just about to read 'From Lance to Landis'.

Good luck with that.

pgibbo

Signal_ rabbit wrote: »

Just finished Rough Ride and although I starting reading it with a view to slam the man, I found the book to be a very good read and an honest account of PK's experiences.

Just about to read 'From Lance to Landis'..............!

I too read these books in the last few months. I read Bad Blood in between the two. I also read Rough Ride first and really enjoyed it. It's a great read. bad Blood and From Lance to Landis in particular are real eye opens. I was glad that it was recommended to me on here - by tunney originally if my memory is correct. Enjoy it and let us know what you think. My thoughts on Lance changed dramatically whilst reading the book.