Rough Ride on RTÉ 1 tonight *mod note post #153*

highbury1913

RobFowl wrote: »

He told the truth and expects (even demands) others do the same.
Without PK Lance would still have 7 TDF's and PMQ would still be UCI president with Hein lurking in the background.
His interview with Floyd Landis is outstanding IMO.

That's probably the biggest myth in relation to the downfall of Armstrong where it's portrayed he's one of the biggest players in the episode.

Kimmage's role has been vastly overplayed. Outside of the California press conference in 2009, Kimmage had little or no dealings with Armstrong and certainly not during his 7 Tour wins. Read the revised updated edition of Rough Ride and there is a chapter at the end in relation to the 2006 Tour. The Sunday Times wanted him to cover it but he was adamant initially that he didn't want to do it. Later he said that was the first Tour he covered in it's entirety since 1993 and instead says he decided to cover other sports and rattled off a list of the events that he did report on in the meantime. He says himself he didn't cover much with regards to cycling in that period.

Remember Armstrong didn't even know what he looked like in 2009 and this is coming from a man who wanted to be on top of anything that was being written critically about him. Kimmage jumped on the story only after 2009 but he did no investigative work on it. Walsh exposed the Ferrari link and gave a platform to Emma O'Reilly, Betsy Andreu and Stephen Swart. You had the Le Monde article about the positive in '99, the 6 positives in l'Equipe which Damien Ressiot did and Pierre Ballester in LA Confidential. This was the type of journalism that did the damage to Armstrong and was worrying to him and his agent Bill Stapleton. Kimmage only really came into it in 2009 and just repeated other people's work where the hard graft was done. The people I mentioned above suffered the real hardship during the Armstrong years.

Even taking Juliet Macur, she was threatened to be sued by Stapleton in 2007. Reed Albergotti tried to do investigate work in 2009 by contacting an ex-wife of Armstrong's agent and got blasted by Armstrong's inner circle for doing so. Again they were blacklisted by Armstrong as this was the journalism that could do most harm and inform the public the best.

In "Wheelmen", the best account on this topic, Kimmage wasn't mentioned once and in Juliet Macur's book, just once in relation to the California press conference. That's not the picture of a guy who had a big influence on this story.

Kimmage is a brilliant interviewer, holding people to account at press conferences, great at follow up questions and writing opinion pieces of doping in cycling, but his investigative work as a journalist on it is near non-existent and his role in the downfall of Lance has been vastly exaggerated.

Not seeing Damien Ressiot and Pierre Ballester get the recognition they deserve somewhat annoys me when seeing the attention that Kimmage has got for not exposing one detail and doing little during the years of his 7 Tour wins.

Ressiot's journalism regarding the 6 positives was a masterpiece.

RobFowl

highbury1913 wrote: »

That's probably the biggest myth in relation to the downfall of Armstrong where it's portrayed he's one of the biggest players in the episode.

Kimmage's role has been vastly overplayed. .

I don't want to belittle any of the work done by those you mentioned but PK's interview with Floyd Landis was seminal and it was the admissions and testimony of Floyd that was the key to bringing down Armstrong.

I'd stand over the comment that with out him doing that kind of work and getting those sort of interviews LA would still have his & tour wins credited to him.

Thats said it was ultimately the culmination of all the work you mention (and 1-2 of the names I'd forgotton to my shame, thanks for sharing the detail) that broughthim down.

That and the threat of jail and plea bargains from the other ex team mates..

ThisRegard

highbury1913 wrote: »

Remember Armstrong didn't even know what he looked like in 2009 and this is coming from a man who wanted to be on top of anything that was being written critically about him.

He was aware of Kimmage at the time though.

evilivor

highbury1913 wrote: »

Remember Armstrong didn't even know what he looked like in 2009 and this is coming from a man who wanted to be on top of anything that was being written critically about him. .

Armstrong's "…cos I don't know what you look like" - was part of his put down of Kimmage.

LennoxR

Thing is Kimmage is right about doping. According to Phil Ligget as many as 100 pro riders may have died in the 1990s and early 2000s as a result of taking EPO. He's right to still be suspicious.

But at the same time Kimmage is some gobsh*te. I don't know how his poor wife puts up with him. His brother effectively said he's become a bit of twat in recent years ('lost his sense of humour' was how he put it). It's quite obvious that covering cycling is bad for his mental health given his history as a pro. Forhis own good he should cover other sports.

highbury1913

RobFowl wrote: »

I don't want to belittle any of the work done by those you mentioned but PK's interview with Floyd Landis was seminal and it was the admissions and testimony of Floyd that was the key to bringing down Armstrong.

I'd stand over the comment that with out him doing that kind of work and getting those sort of interviews LA would still have his & tour wins credited to him.

Thats said it was ultimately the culmination of all the work you mention (and 1-2 of the names I'd forgotton to my shame, thanks for sharing the detail) that broughthim down.

That and the threat of jail and plea bargains from the other ex team mates..

Don't get me wrong the Landis interview was excellent but that was long done after Landis went public himself with the emails detailing his own doping and that of USPS. Landis done this all on his own initiative and did it with no influence from Kimmage or any other journalist for that matter. The Wall Street Journal with Vanessa O'Connell and Reed Albergotti were the first to report on it and covered it extensively. Like I said, the Kimmage interview with Landis was excellent but Landis did mulitiple interviews in the period after coming forward on his accord. The NBC program was one, ESPN, WSJ, Graham Bensinger, and he done one for German TV as well.

None of those interviews were guys digging behind the scenes, again it was after Landis blew the house down which he did on his own making. Kimmage along with many others jumped on the Landis story then.

I'm speaking in journalistic terms, the names I mentioned previously(Ressiot, Ballester, Walsh) were the ones that informed the public the best. In "Wheelmen", Reed Albergotti and Vanessa O'Connell reported about Sheryl Crow testifying to the feds about her accompanying Armstrong on a trip to Belgium for a blood transfusion and Armstrong emailing Michael Barry to lie to the feds. Juliet Macur in her book was the first to report on Armstrong bribing another rider to win San Sebastian in 1995. Kimmage has never exposed anything of note like that in relation to Armstrong.

Go back to the SCA case many years back, LA Confidential with Walsh and Ballester, and Ressiot and the 6 positives were the main influence in journalistic terms that brought that case about. Walsh testified along with Betsy, Swart, Lemond, Frankie etc. In comparison, Kimmage and his work had no influence and played no part over this case. That was all due to the fact that he did little or no work on it during Lance's 7 Tour wins and certainly not in investigative terms.

highbury1913

ThisRegard wrote: »

He was aware of Kimmage at the time though.

Because as we see in The Armstrong Lie, Hincapie told him that Kimmage was around asking questions and warned him about it. Armstrong says he knew the name a bit but didn't know what he looked like. In the press conference he even says he had to make sure it was him before answering.

How many press conferences did Armstrong do during those Julys while he was in yellow for those 7 wins? Multiple ones of a high number in front of many journalists that he would have known over those years, and yet in 2009 he didn't know what Kimmage looked like. That should tell you about Kimmage and his work and his lack of dealing with Armstrong and his inner circle.

highbury1913

evilivor wrote: »

Armstrong's "…cos I don't know what you look like" - was part of his put down of Kimmage.

He said it also in The Armstrong Lie afterwards.

wicklowwonder

highbury1913 wrote: »

Because as we see in The Armstrong Lie, Hincapie told him that Kimmage was around asking questions and warned him about it. Armstrong says he knew the name a bit but didn't know what he looked like. In the press conference he even says he had to make sure it was him before answering.

How many press conferences did Armstrong do during those Julys while he was in yellow for those 7 wins? Multiple ones of a high number in front of many journalists that he would have known over those years, and yet in 2009 he didn't know what Kimmage looked like. That should tell you about Kimmage and his work and his lack of dealing with Armstrong and his inner circle.

While you may be correct to a certain extent I do think Lance used that line to discredit Kimmage as well. As if to say what do you know I don't even know what you look like. It was used to an extent as a put down. You can be sure Lance knew exactly what he looked like if knew enough about what he was writing and why he turned down an interview. It would be totally against Lance's character not to know what he looked like as is always portrayed as a controller, knowing everything about everything in his sphere if that makes sense.

K-9

wicklowwonder wrote: »

While you may be correct to a certain extent I do think Lance used that line to discredit Kimmage as well. As if to say what do you know I don't even know what you look like. It was used to an extent as a put down. You can be sure Lance knew exactly what he looked like if knew enough about what he was writing and why he turned down an interview. It would be totally against Lance's character not to know what he looked like as is always portrayed as a controller, knowing everything about everything in his sphere if that makes sense.

Probably a psychological dimension to it all right, he seemed to swing it around to the cancer word very effectively from the edited bit I watched. Dismiss any questions he had to answer by going on the emotional offensive.

ThisRegard

LennoxR wrote: »

Forhis own good he should cover other sports.

He does, and has done so for a while.

pappyodaniel

Where can I watch this? I haven't seen it on the Rte player.

on_the_nickel

MajesticDonkey wrote: »

You'd be surprised the amount of people in A4 that dope, let alone professionals!

Ok to send you a PM? Asking for a friend.

lennymc

on_the_nickel wrote: »

Ok to send you a PM? Asking for a friend.

do people really believe that A4 riders are doping?

lennymc

pappyodaniel wrote: »

Where can I watch this? I haven't seen it on the Rte player.

do people really not read the threads (where it was mentioned eleventy million thousand times that its not on the rte player)

ROK ON

I didn't see this and am aware it's not on player.

Does anyone have any idea will it be shown again - or is it going to be released in cinema?
On basis that some folk here were at a private screening I am figuring that someone will know.

lennymc

^^^ i would imagine it will be released on dvd. I recorded it on sky plus yoke, but can't give you a loan of it.

RenegadeDisco

lennymc wrote: »

do people really believe that A4 riders are doping?

The omerta from some A4 posters in this thread is deafening.

on_the_nickel

lennymc wrote: »

do people really believe that A4 riders are doping?

Do you know Edgar? Asking for a friend.

Junior

on_the_nickel wrote: »

Do you know Edgar? Asking for a friend.

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
`'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -
Only this, and nothing more.'

Damn Testers...

lennymc

RenegadeDisco wrote: »

The omerta from some A4 posters in this thread is deafening.

Aint no a4 gonna spit in the soup.

not sane

RenegadeDisco wrote: »

The omerta from some A4 posters in this thread is deafening.

Love that ha ha

Kat1170

Junior wrote: »

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
`'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -
Only EPO, and nothing more.'

Damn Testers...

FYP :D

fat bloke

lennymc wrote: »

do people really believe that A4 riders are doping?

All joking aside, there have been stories in UK and the States of basically amateur riders doping.

It's completely mad but sure any ol geezer with access to the internet can try their hand at juicing up. I'd love to do it myself personally. Show up at an A3 race on my Giant Defy, hands nonchalantly on the hoods, and proceed to ride everyone off my wheel

lennymc

fat bloke wrote: »

All joking aside, there have been stories in UK and the States of basically amateur riders doping.

It's completely mad but sure any ol geezer with access to the internet can try their hand at juicing up. I'd love to do it myself personally. Show up at an A3 race on my Giant Defy, hands nonchalantly on the hoods, and proceed to ride everyone off my wheel

That would be a sight to see - you at an a3 race.

Harrybelafonte

Considering I've had to argue with people that whey protein and creatine aren't steroids, I wouldn't be surprised if accusations of doping in a4 were actually made.

detones

Nice piece here from Cillian Kelly on his thoughts on the programme.

http://www.anpost.ie/AnPost/IrishCycling/News_Events/Events/Rough+Rider.htm

Inquitus

lennymc wrote: »

do people really believe that A4 riders are doping?

You want to know what A4 riders are on, they are on their bike, busting their arse 6 hours a day.....

derealbadger

Inquitus wrote: »

You want to know what A4 riders are on, they are on their bike, busting their arse 6 hours a day.....

I would like to distance myself from that comment I only managed 2 laps the last day before being dropped and admittedly I was not the fastest but surely not 6 hours

delboyfagan

Inquitus wrote: »

You want to know what A4 riders are on, they are on their bike, busting their arse 6 hours a day.....

Very Good

bazermc

Inquitus wrote: »

You want to know what A4 riders are on, they are on their bike, busting their arse 6 hours a day.....

Just the 6 hours, with that sort of attitude they will never make A3

buffalo

Two great follow-up pieces to the programme:

Review: http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/kimmages-superb-film-a-sad-story-of-unrequited-love-30479656.html

Kimmage's latest article: http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-whos-afraid-of-johannes-draaijer-30479202.html

ionadnapokot

nerraw1111 wrote: »

Did he mention Dan Martin's win?

Seems a curious omission not to say anything about the first Irish stage win since Roche 21 years earlier on the very tour he's covering?

I was also disappointed that it wasn't included. Only the 5th Irishman to win a stage and it wasn't commented on

Fr D Maugire

buffalo wrote: »

Two great follow-up pieces to the programme:

Review: http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/kimmages-superb-film-a-sad-story-of-unrequited-love-30479656.html

Kimmage's latest article: http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-whos-afraid-of-johannes-draaijer-30479202.html

Yes the Johannes Draaijer example and other cases seem to have become his justification for his crusade but I have a question.

Did Kimmage write about the rise of EPO during the actual time it was happening in the early 90s. I would have been too young to have been reading the Sunday papers at the time. I remember Rough Ride was republished in 98 with an extra chapter on the rise of EPO but that happened just as the cat was about to be released with Festina.

I think Mr.Kimmage is doing a bit of revisionism here by making it all about those who died. What was Kimmage writing about at the time EPO was flooding the peloton? probably all those other sports that clearly didn't have doping problems:rolleyes:

Kimmage protrays this vehemently anti-doping stance but what was he doing about it when it was at it's worst in the 90s EPO era? I am not anti-Kimmage, I just don't think he is the amazing anti-doping hero he is made out to be and has been hypocritical in the past on the subject. If you are anti-doping, you are anti-doping all the time, not just when it suits you.

highbury1913

Fr D Maugire wrote: »

Yes the Johannes Draaijer example and other cases seem to have become his justification for his crusade but I have a question.

Did Kimmage write about the rise of EPO during the actual time it was happening in the early 90s. I would have been too young to have been reading the Sunday papers at the time. I remember Rough Ride was republished in 98 with an extra chapter on the rise of EPO but that happened just as the cat was about to be released with Festina.

I think Mr.Kimmage is doing a bit of revisionism here by making it all about those who died. What was Kimmage writing about at the time EPO was flooding the peloton? probably all those other sports that clearly didn't have doping problems:rolleyes:

Kimmage protrays this vehemently anti-doping stance but what was he doing about it when it was at it's worst in the 90s EPO era? I am not anti-Kimmage, I just don't think he is the amazing anti-doping hero he is made out to be and has been hypocritical in the past on the subject. If you are anti-doping, you are anti-doping all the time, not just when it suits you.

I said this up thread.

Even in the last revised edition of Rough Ride, there was a chapter taking in the 2006 Tour and he said it was the first Tour he covered in detail since 1993. David Millar tells him he was a pro for 8 years up to then and that he was out of the woodwork. Kimmage said it was due to Walsh covering it in previous years. He clearly says that he preferred to cover other sports during that period.

That's the thing, Kimmage mightn't have believed Armstrong but he did little work on that during the 7 Tour wins and then jumps on it in 2009 after others did the hard graft and suffered on a personal and professional basis because of it. People try to build him up as a big player in it which is untrue.

There was a piece on Kimmage in the Irish Independent in the last year and he spoke about his falling out with Walsh due to having a differing opinion on Sky. I find that staggering that he would end a 30 year friendship with a guy who he speaks regularly to every week when it's a topic that should be seen as a disagreement on a solely sporting perspective. In that same article, he said the difference is it runs deep with him because he's a past pro himself. Neverthless, he forgets he told Walsh years before Lance's downfall that he should leave the Lance story for good as he felt it was affecting Walsh on a personal level too much.

Going back to Sky, Kimmage told Walsh not to report inside Sky but yet had no problem in doing so with Garmin in 2008. In his Irish Indo video diary during the Tour 2013 he said it was a great way of showing transparency but doesn't recognise with Walsh who spent a far longer period at Sky than Kimmage with Garmin.

Kimmage means well but I find faults and inconsistencies in the way deals with certain issues in the sport. He keeps referring to Leinders with Sky even to this day and there's no problem with that, but I never hear him refer to the other doping docs that are still actually active in the sport as we see at Orica GreenEdge and Katusha just to mention two.

Having one or two main targets at any one time is not dealing with the issue in the sport.

diomed

This link indicates the advantage drugs give in sport.
http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html
Did cycling teams have team doctors in the 1930s to 1970s? Why do they have team doctors?

Doc07

diomed wrote: »

This link indicates the advantage drugs give in sport.
http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html
Did cycling teams have team doctors in the 1930s to 1970s? Why do they have team doctors?

To put plasters on their cut knees and to dole out the vitamins. In fairness there are plenty of legit roles for a doctor on a team with up to 30 riders re injuries and general health eg when on the road for a 3 week tour. However sports medicine is still relatively new as a specialty so there was plenty of 'make it up as we go along' nonsense over the years.

EPO was undoubtedly a game changer as if you had the money and basic equipment a relatively junior/novice doctor could supervise it's use safely, especially when compared to amphetamine or corticosteroids.

fishfoodie

highbury1913 wrote: »

I said this up thread.

Even in the last revised edition of Rough Ride, there was a chapter taking in the 2006 Tour and he said it was the first Tour he covered in detail since 1993. David Millar tells him he was a pro for 8 years up to then and that he was out of the woodwork. Kimmage said it was due to Walsh covering it in previous years. He clearly says that he preferred to cover other sports during that period.

That's the thing, Kimmage mightn't have believed Armstrong but he did little work on that during the 7 Tour wins and then jumps on it in 2009 after others did the hard graft and suffered on a personal and professional basis because of it. People try to build him up as a big player in it which is untrue.

There was a piece on Kimmage in the Irish Independent in the last year and he spoke about his falling out with Walsh due to having a differing opinion on Sky. I find that staggering that he would end a 30 year friendship with a guy who he speaks regularly to every week when it's a topic that should be seen as a disagreement on a solely sporting perspective. In that same article, he said the difference is it runs deep with him because he's a past pro himself. Neverthless, he forgets he told Walsh years before Lance's downfall that he should leave the Lance story for good as he felt it was affecting Walsh on a personal level too much.

Going back to Sky, Kimmage told Walsh not to report inside Sky but yet had no problem in doing so with Garmin in 2008. In his Irish Indo video diary during the Tour 2013 he said it was a great way of showing transparency but doesn't recognise with Walsh who spent a far longer period at Sky than Kimmage with Garmin.

Kimmage means well but I find faults and inconsistencies in the way deals with certain issues in the sport. He keeps referring to Leinders with Sky even to this day and there's no problem with that, but I never hear him refer to the other doping docs that are still actually active in the sport as we see at Orica GreenEdge and Katusha just to mention two.

Having one or two main targets at any one time is not dealing with the issue in the sport.

PK has repeatedly mentioned having written stories & then having them spiked by the legal eagles !

I don't think the absense of stories by him in 2000 that Lance was a doping SOB is any proof that that wasn't exactly his belief. Now if you show me a story where he expressed his conviction that Lance was evidence of a new clean sport, that might be something ?