Kimmage and GarmenSlip Stream

drogdub

I have been reading alot him spending a year with Garmen/Slipstream, I wonder if there is a new book from him on the way. I hope so.

kcphoto

A new book would be very welcome and interesting, no doubt.

BaBiT

I'll look forward to it in the same way I look forward to my next saddle sore

amjon

Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2388

Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject: Kimmage tells it like it is. A transcript of an interview Paul Kimamge did on the `Off the ball` program on the Irish radio station http://newstalk.ie on 11/09/08, courtesy of cyclingfansanonymous.

Sorry if this has already been done but if so I didn`t see it!

---

"My reaction...the enthusiasm that I had built up about the sport in the last couple of years has been all but completely wiped out in the last couple of hours.

Let’s turn the clock back to Armstrong’s last apparition in the sport. The Tour de France 2005. He’s standing on the podium. And he makes this big impassioned speech. Which is basically saying ‘The last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics, the sceptics: I’m sorry for you. I’m sorry you can’t dream big. I’m sorry you don’t believe in miracles.’ That was 2005, his last ride in the the Tour de France. And the people flanking him on that podium were Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich. And a month after that race ended the French newspaper L’Equipe reported that in his first winning Tour de France, in 1999, Armstrong had tested positive for EPO. Six separate samples taken during that race revealed positive tests for EPO.

This return, he wants us to believe that it’s all about saving the world from cancer. That’s complete bull****. It’s about revenge It’s about ego. It’s about Lance Armstrong. I think he’s trying to rewrite his exit from the sport. He’s sat back and he’s watched the last two years and he cannot stand the idea that there are clean cyclists now that will overtake his legacy and buy the memory of all the crap that he put the sport through.

When I heard it being mooted first that he was coming back, I thought well that’s fine, because the first thing ASO are going to say is ‘sorry Lance, we’ve seen your results from the 1999 tests , you’re not coming back.’ I expected a similar statement from Pat McQuaid. What’s happened instead is that Christian Prudhomme has said ‘yes, you can come back, no problem.’ And Pat McQiad has said ‘I really admire this man, he’s a tremendous ambassador for cycling.’ What we’re getting here is the corporate dollars and the money that’s going to accompany this guy back into the game. The money that’s going to bring for Nike, one of the big sponsors of the Tour. And for the UCI, who have been experiencing some serious problems in the last couple of years.

Much as you want to say the sport has changed, as quickly as they can change their own opinions – McQuaid, who says one thing in private and quite the opposite in public, and Prudhomme – if they can change so quickly then I’m sorry, it’s really very, very difficult to have any optimism with regard to Armstrong and the way the sport was moving forward. For me, if he comes back next year, the sport takes two steps back.

I spent the whole Tour this year with Slipstream, the Garmin team. That wasn’t by accident. I chose that team deliberately, because of what they were saying about the sport and the message they were putting out. But also the fact that so many of that team had raced with Armstrong during his best years and knew exactly what he got up to. And the stuff that I learnt on that Tour about him and what he was really like was absolutely shocking, really shocking.

What’s going to happen now is he comes back and everybody’s going to wave their hands in the air and give him a big clap. And all the guys who really know what he’s about are going to feel so utterly and totally depressed. And I’m talking about Jonathan Vuaghthers, who raced with Armstrong that first winning Tour and who doped. And if you look at that Tour, Armstrong’s first win, there were seven Americans on that team. Frankie Andreu has said he used EPO. Tyler Hamilton has been done for [blood doping]. George Hincapie was exposed as a doper by Emma O’Reilly, the team soigneur. Christian Vand Velde and Jonathan Vaughters … both are members of Slipstream and would promote the notion that this was not a clean team by any means. When you look at that and what Armstrong’s done and how he’s seemingly got away with it, it just makes his come back very hard to stomach.

Astana’s the absolute perfect team for him. He’d be renewing his old acquaintance with Bruyneel, who wanted to hire Basso last year. Will he be renewing his old acquaintance with Ferrari, the famous doctor? Will Bruyneel be taking pictures of the questioning journalists and pinning them on the side of his bus?

When Armstrong talks about transparency, this is the greatest laugh. When he talks about embracing this new transparency … I’m really looking forward to that. I’m really looking forward to my first interview request with him and seeing how that comes back. Because that would really make it interesting.

This guy, any other way but his bullying and intimidation wrapped up in this great cloak, the great cancer martyr … this is what he hides behind all the time. The great man who conquered cancer. Well he is the cancer in this sport. And for two years this sport has been in remission. And now the cancer’s back."

---

The station has also put out a podcast where Kimmage covers much of the same ground.

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

Liamo08

Forgetting for a minute the whole doping argument, am I the only one who finds some of his cancer comments at the end of that transcript way offside. Like at the end of the day he's talking about a guy who was given a 50% chance of surviving cancer, we all get it that he doesn't like him but his choice of words here annoys me.

Raam

Liamo08 wrote: »

Forgetting for a minute the whole doping argument, am I the only one who finds some of his cancer comments at the end of that transcript way offside. Like at the end of the day he's talking about a guy who was given a 50% chance of surviving cancer, we all get it that he doesn't like him but his choice of words here annoys me.

Honest question: what is it about his words that annoys you?

Liamo08

Raam wrote: »

Honest question: what is it about his words that annoys you?

Basically the whole last paragraph of that transcript and especially the "He is the cancer of the sport part", I think to say that about someone who nearly died of cancer is hitting very far below the belt. Maybe I'm reading too much into what was said as I didn’t actually hear the interview but I think he could have gotten his point across without saying stuff like that.

tunney

Liamo08 wrote: »

Basically the whole last paragraph of that transcript and especially the "He is the cancer of the sport part", I think to say that about someone who nearly died of cancer is hitting very far below the belt. Maybe I'm reading too much into what was said as I didn’t actually hear the interview but I think he could have gotten his point across without saying stuff like that.

Its a pretty fair analogy.

Chips Lovell

In many ways Armstrong has become something of a sacred cow because of his cancer. Nobody bats an eyelid when questions are asked about other riders, but woe betide you if you do so about Armstrong. If Lance's story gives people with cancer hope, then questioning his achievements is seen as somehow taking that hope away.

I think the moral of the story should be that d**kheads get cancer too.

Diarmuid

Liamo08 wrote: »

Basically the whole last paragraph of that transcript and especially the "He is the cancer of the sport part", I think to say that about someone who nearly died of cancer is hitting very far below the belt. .

It's a bit rough and he probably could have chosen his words more diplomatically, but if you ignored the fact that LA had cancer then calling him the cancer of the sport is pretty accurate (IMHO)

Orizio

Liamo08 wrote: »

Basically the whole last paragraph of that transcript and especially the "He is the cancer of the sport part", I think to say that about someone who nearly died of cancer is hitting very far below the belt. Maybe I'm reading too much into what was said as I didn’t actually hear the interview but I think he could have gotten his point across without saying stuff like that.

Can't say I agree, seems like a perfectly apt analogy. Armstrong and his ilk are undeniably 'cancers' upon the sport, and his comeback is based aroud Armstrongs enormous ego, not his dedeication to cancer. Frankly, I find it rather despicable he is using cancer as an excuse to come to a sport that really doesn't need him.

smithslist

amjon wrote: »

J

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

the url is not working for me....is there another link

Lumen

Can someone with more understanding than I have of the Armstrong doping accusations please explain to me....

What about innocent until proven guilty? As far as I can tell, the only firm evidence for Armstrong doping was the 1999 test, at which time EPO was not banned.

From what I read in his autobiography, it seems that Armstrongs body was transformed positively by the cancer treatment, in the sense that his physique was changed from stocky to a bit scrawny up top, which helped in the mountains.

Other than those two things, it seems like his team doped, and his competitors doped, but nothing else has been proven.

So is the accusation that his victories (being a team effort) were assisted by drugs taken by others, or that his own personal performance against mostly doped competitors is considered not credible without EPO?

Educate me please...

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

As far as I can tell, the only firm evidence for Armstrong doping was the 1999 test, at which time EPO was not banned.

Eh it was, just no tests.

Lumen wrote: »

From what I read in his autobiography, it seems that Armstrongs body was transformed positively by the cancer treatment, in the sense that his physique was changed from stocky to a bit scrawny up top, which helped in the mountains.

A nice little lie, but he was at most 2-3 lbs lighter post cancer. Medicals listing weight show this.

Lumen wrote: »

Other than those two things, it seems like his team doped, and his competitors doped, but nothing else has been proven.

And his attitude as "patron" towards outspoken anti-doping riders. He ruined many a career of anti-doping riders.

Read Armstrongs books and you'll love him.

Then read Walsh's books on him, ride Kimmages Rough Ride, read the biographies of Pantani. Read as many articles and books as you can.

This is what I did and I went from band-wearing armstrong fan, to..... well, informed.

Raam

tunney wrote: »

Read Armstrongs books and you'll love him.

I read his books, and I didn't like him at all by the time I had finished.

Liamo08

Genuine question - Can anyone tell me why the independent review of the '99 tests and there apparent exonerating of Armstrong seems to be disregarded by a lot of people when talking about this?

TinyExplosions

The whole LA thing is a never ending circle of fans and haters.... at the end of the day, he never tested positive. Therefore in the eyes of the law (and the UCI), he's innocent. However, there remains a large number of questions over his conduct, and over his results (routinely beating dopers on his way)

Not all dopers have tested positive -Barjne Riis never did, yet admitted to it.

Nothing productive will come from this conversation -nothing ever does!

I've read his books, and liked them -I've read others books on him, and think on reflection that he's a bit arrogant, and a vindictive sod too. I think he doped, but I think he did what a lot of other riders did, and in a sense was on a level playing field (cue the flaming torches at that one!)

I still think it's a pretty good story he's woven though don't want to see him back

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

As far as I can tell, the only firm evidence for Armstrong doping was the 1999 test, at which time EPO was not banned.

EPO had been banned since 1990.

Lumen wrote: »

Other than those two things, it seems like his team doped, and his competitors doped, but nothing else has been proven.

Like most cyclists from that era, there is no conclusive proof about his doping. Given the circumstances, all you can do is sift through the evidence and decide for yourself what you think. In Armstrong's case, read David Walsh's book From Lance to Landis which is probably the most thorough examination of the allegations.

If you don't want to read the book then, aside from the 1999 EPO tests, there are a few things to consider.

1. Armstrong's decision to work with Michele Ferrari attracted a lot of controversy. Remember Ferrari was the guy who worked with the infamous Gewiss Ballan team and told the press that taking EPO was no more dangerous than drinking orange juice.
   
2. When Filippo Simeoni decided to testify against Ferrari, Armstrong publicly branded him a liar. Then there was the incident in the 2004 Tour when he chased down a break Simeoni was in and refused to leave it until Simeoni abandoned also.
   
3. He exhibited the same attitude towards Christope Bassons, who was famously the only guy on Festina who rode clean. Riding the 1999 Tour, he said Armstrong told him he should shut up and quit the race.
   
4. There's also the issue of the famous hospital bed conversation, in which Armstrong allegedly admitted he'd been using PEDs.

Diarmuid

Lumen wrote: »

Educate me please...

There are tons of info about the accusations and evidence against LA on this forum and on the web in general. If you want to find it, 2 minutes on google will throw it up. (Look for David Walsh, Paul Kimmage, Michelle Ferrari, Filippo Simeoni and tons more) The subject has come up so many times now that I think most here couldn't be bother to tread back over the same old ground again.

Two points I will mention as you brought them up,
1. The study showing that Armstrong's body changed during cancer has been shown to be extremely flawed to the point that it was wrong.
2. Doping tests do not prove innocence.

Chips Lovell

Liamo08 wrote: »

Genuine question - Can anyone tell me why the independent review of the '99 tests and there apparent exonerating of Armstrong seems to be disregarded by a lot of people when talking about this?

The Vrijman report was seen by a lot of people as being a bit of a whitewash, given that he focussed so much on saying they weren't official tests and therefore couldn't attract sanctions. We all knew they weren't official tests. It was a research project.

Anyway, WADA, the world anti-doping agency had a lot to say about the report. It's initial statement said:

WADA expressed its astonishment that the UCI would expect anyone to have the slightest confidence in the objectivity, methodology, analysis or conclusions of such a report, especially since UCI had had more than six weeks during which to review the draft report and to correct the many factual errors contained in it.

WADA’s preliminary conclusion is that the report is defamatory to the Agency, its officers and employees, as well as the accredited laboratory involved. WADA has taken legal advice regarding its recourses against the investigator and any organization, including UCI, that may publicly adopt its conclusions.

It made a fuller statement about it here and made some choice remarks:

The process used by the French Laboratory in conducting its research was not the process used for analysing samples for the purpose of sanctions.

Mr. Vrijman, at all times, confuses this fundamental difference and seems to indicate that, in conducting research, the laboratory was required to carry it out in the same manner as for analysing samples for adverse analytical findings. This is not the case, and Mr. Vrijman, in directing himself to the rules relating to samples collected for analysis rather than understanding the difference for research, has totally misdirected himself in his inquiry. This very basic error leads to ill-informed and incorrect outcomes. The laboratory has indicated publicly that it has no doubt whatsoever in the results of its analysis, and that no sample used for the research project was contaminated, manipulated or interfered with. There may be appropriately stored residue still available for DNA and other further analysis.

Chips Lovell

Diarmuid wrote: »

The study showing that Armstrong's body changed during cancer has been shown to be extremely flawed to the point that it was wrong.

This is pretty important and only came out recently. Coyle actually testified for Armstrong in the case against SCA promotions.

Liamo08

el tonto wrote: »

This is pretty important and only came out recently. Coyle actually testified for Armstrong in the case against SCA promotions.

For anyone new to this debate you can read Armstrongs defence from the case with SCA promotions along with some testimony's etc here:

http://www.thepaceline.com/freeforallitem.aspx?cid=3312

There's a lot of propaganda in there but some intertesting stuff that's worth a read, no harm to get both sides of the argument before making up your mind.

Tackleberry

After so many drug scandals and the like, I find my confidence in Lance's integrity has taken a hammering over the years, I'm clinging to one theory that I always felt explained lance's results, so I'll throw it out to you lads to see what you think, maybe you can kill it off once and for all:

Lance was programmed for the Tour, and the tour alone, he never really shone or excelled in anything else, save some good showings in the Dauphine or the Amstel, and he was paid millions and millions to perform on what essentially amounted to 3 or 4 stages in the tour each year - nothing else. His training, his team, his racing programme, all focused at the tour like nobody else in the pro cycling scene - NO other rider has ever, or could ever, do this.

Ullrich stuffed his fat ass all winter, and only raced to shed the pounds, Pantani, Basso, Mayo, Vino etc, NEVER trained as intensively or as effectively as Lance, and I guess they used drugs to make up for the shortfall. Every other rider in the peleton was obliged to race and perform in countless races all season, Lance had to perform at one, and he'd the worlds best team dedicated to backing him up.

He pioneered intense pre-tour prep, rec'ing the major TT and mountain stages, developing equipment to suit his own purposes, and it is in this context that I can believe the guy was clean, its too easy to tarnish all pro's, even easier when they're very successful, but if you consider how much of a unique rider and situation this was, I don't think its impossible that he was clean. And anyway I can't see the guy pumping drugs into himself after nearly dying from cancer, he wouldn't have risked it.

paddyb

FRENCH OFFER ARMSTRONG A RE-TEST OF HIS 1999 TOUR SAMPLES

* Home
* » CW News
* » FRENCH OFFER ARMSTRONG A RE-TEST OF HIS 1999 TOUR SAMPLES

Wednesday 1st October 2008 - By Cycling Weekly
Lance Armstrong visits the 2006 Tour de France

The French Anti-Doping Authority (AFLD) has offered Lance Armstrong a chance to retest his urine samples from the 1999 Tour - which, according to French newspaper L'Equipe allegedly contained traces of EPO.

“Mr Armstrong is a great champion,” AFLD boss Pierre Bordry told French newspaper L'Equipe on Wednesday, “Everybody can understand how someone like him would want to come back to the Tour again."

"I would like that comeback to be in the best possible conditions, so I would suggest that we do a complete analysis of the six urine samples taken in the 1999 Tour.That would perhaps give him the chance to affirm he never cheated during his brilliant career.”

L'Equipe alleged back in 2005 that the 1999 samples, taken during the first of Armstrong's seven Tours victories, contained traces of EPO. Armstrong has always categorically denied all allegations of doping.

Bordry added that the Paris laboratory which had carried out the testing had confirmed to him that Armstrong's samples had been conserved in the correct conditions, and that if Armstrong wished the new tests would be carried out in the presence of an expert nominated by the Texan.

He even said that if necessary the tests could be carried out in another WADA-accredited laboratory, not the one in Paris which produced the alleged positives.

Following the French offer, the ball is now in Armstrong's court, although there was no immediate reaction from the American and his staff.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/French_offer_Armstrong_a_retest_of_his_1999_Tour_samples_article_269049.html

TinyExplosions

paddyb wrote: »

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/French_offer_Armstrong_a_retest_of_his_1999_Tour_samples_article_269049.html

Brilliant -call his bluff and see what happens

Lumen

Diarmuid wrote: »

Doping tests do not prove innocence.

The whole basis of our legal system is that it is better to let ten guilty people go than punish one innocent person.

I will read the suggested books, but for now my view remains "LA is a bit of a cock, but must be presumed innocent until proven guilty".

I heard Kimmage on the radio, and he sounded bitter and whiney.

That said, the behaviour of the UCI over the 1999 samples is laughable. Maybe they're competing with the FIA for "most out of touch regulatory body".

Chips Lovell

That might throw the cat among the pidgeons.

Liamo08

If he was to agree to get those samples retested and they came back negative would it really change anyone's mind? I think almost everyone has made up their mind at this stage and any retests won't change that opinion. Either way it's highly unlikely that he would agree to it so its all a bit irrelevant.

TinyExplosions

Liamo08 wrote: »

If he was to agree to get those samples retested and they came back negative would it really change anyone's mind? I think almost everyone has made up their mind at this stage and any retests won't change that opinion. Either way it's highly unlikely that he would agree to it so its all a bit irrelevant.

Probably wouldn't change anyones mind, but I think it would be an important thing if they came back negative, as the '99 tests are the only concrete proof (if you want to use that term) of EPO use -everything else is conjecture based on comments made by Lance and people close to him

Diarmuid

Lumen wrote: »

The whole basis of our legal system is that it is better to let ten guilty people go than punish one innocent person.

You don't need to be found with you hand on the knife while it's stuck into your victims body to be found guilty of murder. There is such thing as circumstantial evidence. IMHO (and plenty others from the sound of it) think that there is enough of that to find LA guilty.

I heard Kimmage on the radio, and he sounded bitter and whiney.

I think that's called an ad hominem

Lumen

Diarmuid wrote: »

You don't need to be found with you hand on the knife while it's stuck into your victims body to be found guilty of murder. There is such thing as circumstantial evidence. IMHO (and plenty others from the sound of it) think that there is enough of that to find LA guilty.

In which case the attacks should be directed at the UCI etc rather than the rider. They had many years to catch him, and failed.

LA freely admits that drugs helped him. The disagreements seems to be over whether they were the (legal) chemo or (illegal) EPO, blood doping etc. Either way, his success is a product of (amongst other things) modern pharmacology.

Seven TDF wins is an impressive record, if only for the sheer professionalism of anti-doping evasion.

w.r.t the ad hominem at Kimmage, yes and no. I didn't dismiss his "evidence", I just noted his attitude.