im none of those people? this is the only time i have responded to this video and the only account I have on here beside my regular business gmail. You are just as much of a failure as he is lol
can i join in the fun and say lots of naughty words too!!!!! fuck wanker gob shite bugger bollocks!!!!!!!!
Guys i am a sponsored cyclist age 37 and started riding in the lemond, fignon indurain era. Paul Kimmage may not have had the talent to win pro races but i genuinely believe he was a rider trying to race clean and was very much a victim of a system where EVERY man and his dog knew damn well what was going on but nobody would do anything about it. He has the right to be pissed off
Here is what this book I am reading says (Bad Blood by Jeremy Whittle): The Tour de France was built on decent, old-fashioned values — in everything I had read, the chivalry, self-sacrifice and honour . . . . The more time I spent in press rooms and . . . chatted across dinner tables where tongues were freed by red wine, the more I understood that doping was everywhere. ** Thank God for the journalists.
I think you know damn well there is hardly any comparison between the two guys concerned. Try reading rough ride- and i mean read it PROPERLY – which Stephen Roche obviously didn't
I've read Rough Ride, in which he laments his bad luck and poor treatment like a wingeing five year old. He made no attempt to make his own luck by training or maybe finishing a race now and again. The self pity of the man is astonishing, when it rained it was only him who got wet, when it was cold only the "victim" felt it, in the mountains only poor old kimmage found it hard. He's a "feel sorry for me" character, and you fell for it big time. Count me out for Mr 'I'm sooo hard done by'.
Yes you're right he had a hard time and struggled with morale and he did pack a lot of races. He was a good rider who wasn't cut out for that life but try to remember he stuck it out for 4 seasons so he can't have been that big a loser can he? Do you not think you are ever so slightly missing the point? Nobody who believes in what paul wrote has fell for anything "big time"- you are totally off the mark with that comment. would you rather rough ride and breaking the chain etc were never written?
When you put it like that, I retract my sentiments. I'm glad Rough Ride was written, but I am sceptical about his reasoning, Danny: it made him money. If he thought he was going to get slung in jail for a month and not paid one penny, would he have written it? Not a chance. Similarly, had he been able to win races on drugs, I believe he'd have continued to do that. Yes I'm glad he wrote it, but he's still a cheat who prospered via his cheating.
Perhaps, but that's what I gleaned from his own book. He said he took a short cut and cheated, albeit as a kid, "Because I couldn't stand the thought of getting beat". This attitude I found continued in him as an adult: time and again he missed lots of training because he couldn't be bothered, and ended up being so tired he gave in to drugs as a result, but he was still never going to win anything and always complained of never making ends meet financially. How to do that? Write a kiss and tell.
Baffling how some can defend Armstrong. The only defence is that he has done a lot for charity. Do the ends justify the means? Hard to say. I'm going with no. He has no remorse over cheating and in a time when it was rife then perhaps. However, protecting himself through using and bullying others, publicly attacking anyone who dared even link him to dopers, never mind asking him personally. That's really low. Threats sent to people who suspected he was breaking the rules. The only way you stopped this behaviour was if you were inside the sport pissing out. People slate Kimmage, but he rode clean or at the very least wanted a clean sport. Lance built a career on lies, drug abuse, intimidation and using cancer survivor as an excuse. Surviving cancer is a lucky thing, but using it to justify cheating is an insult to cancer survivors. Lance the Liar.
Were there others who cheated? Undoubtedly. Does that make it okay? No. Who won all the time? Lance. Who gained the most? Lance. Who deserves to lose the most and be branded the worst of the lot? Lance.
Should dopers be allowed back into the sport? No. Not without a 10-20 year ban, like murderers and thieves. Rehabilitation before reintroduction, if at all. If you dope, you are trying to gain an advantage over your opponents by working less hard and taking credit for false victories. What a role model! Should pedophiles be allowed near children after what they've done? Hell no. Same principle should be for dopers in cycling. Should accountants embezzling funds be given another shot at their job? No because the trust is gone. They should be fired and jailed for their crime. They try the easy way to make gains, they should pay for that. You get your chance to be honest and do your job right. It's not a mistake to cheat, it's a deliberate attempt to break rules. Doping is not a mistake. It's a major choice you make. Cheats make decisions and hope for a second chance to pretend they didn't try get around the rules. No free passes. No exceptions. Why is Lance allowed anywhere near the sport now?
LANCE: "Oprah … I’m telling you, the playing field was level.
This is demonstrably false, for two reasons. One, Armstrong was a hyper-responder to the red cell booster, EPO. That’s because his natural hematocrit ratio was a low level for a pro cyclist, ranging from 38 to 41. The ratio that set off alarms of suspicion in tests (when Armstrong won his 7 Tours) was 50. Armstrong therefore had more room for artificial red blood cell improvement than most cyclists. Two, Armstrong paid the most money (provably $1 million and more likely $5 million during his 7 Tour wins) for exclusive services of the sport’s top blood doping doctor, Italy’s Michele Ferrari, who has been banned from cycling and faces criminal charges in Italy.
Lance Armstrong committed PERJURY. You can watch him do it, right here on YouTube. He abused the legal system to prevent people from writing and speaking the truth. He infringed on FREEDOM OF SPEECH by preventing Walsh from publishing his book it the USA.
lance, what is it that you admire about these dopers? you don't have a patent on cancer. when you show up the cancer of doping disappears. – Kimmage = brilliant.
Say fella’s would you like to comment on the national Ireland’s rugby team who beat out England (on English turf) for all that prize money while totally hopped up on MONSTER STEROIDS?? …Naaah you’d rather cry and run political stories about the TROUBLES!!!
Forget the cycling,the actual playing field being leveled. The true evil exists where Armstrong used his fortune and immense business & political connections to attack and destroy honest,truthful people (many he called friend) all to protect his scams. The financial and emotional damage he viciously inflicted on anyone who knew the truth about him is truly depraved AF. He lied and perjured himself all to destroy their reputations knowing full well they were telling the truth and that HE truly was the malignancy in all of this.
Paul Kimmage was humiliated by Armstrong at event press conferences and the audience clapped and laughed at Kimmage. But he was right all the time and was brave to take his stand. This often happens in politics too where people risk there careers and reputation in order to speak the truth.
36 Comments
im none of those people? this is the only time i have responded to this video and the only account I have on here beside my regular business gmail. You are just as much of a failure as he is lol
ffs,im interacting with a guy with a multiple personality disorder!
You mean understatement
can i join in the fun and say lots of naughty words too!!!!!
fuck wanker gob shite bugger bollocks!!!!!!!!
Guys i am a sponsored cyclist age 37 and started riding in the lemond, fignon indurain era. Paul Kimmage may not have had the talent to win pro races but i genuinely believe he was a rider trying to race clean and was very much a victim of a system where EVERY man and his dog knew damn well what was going on but nobody would do anything about it. He has the right to be pissed off
Here is what this book I am reading says (Bad Blood by Jeremy Whittle): The Tour de France was built on decent, old-fashioned values — in everything I had read, the chivalry, self-sacrifice and honour . . . . The more time I spent in press rooms and . . . chatted across dinner tables where tongues were freed by red wine, the more I understood that doping was everywhere. ** Thank God for the journalists.
Guess why he lost? He wasn't doping.
He was very aggressive when it came to litigation over so called lies. It's not an overstatement at all.
Not fair to say.
Read Paul's autobiography when I was a young cyclist back in earlier 90s.
And everyone has the right to be pissed off at ANYONE who cheated – Kimmage included.
I think you know damn well there is hardly any comparison between the two guys concerned. Try reading rough ride- and i mean read it PROPERLY – which Stephen Roche obviously didn't
I've read Rough Ride, in which he laments his bad luck and poor treatment like a wingeing five year old. He made no attempt to make his own luck by training or maybe finishing a race now and again. The self pity of the man is astonishing, when it rained it was only him who got wet, when it was cold only the "victim" felt it, in the mountains only poor old kimmage found it hard. He's a "feel sorry for me" character, and you fell for it big time. Count me out for Mr 'I'm sooo hard done by'.
Yes you're right he had a hard time and struggled with morale and he did pack a lot of races. He was a good rider who wasn't cut out for that life but try to remember he stuck it out for 4 seasons so he can't have been that big a loser can he? Do you not think you are ever so slightly missing the point? Nobody who believes in what paul wrote has fell for anything "big time"- you are totally off the mark with that comment. would you rather rough ride and breaking the chain etc were never written?
When you put it like that, I retract my sentiments. I'm glad Rough Ride was written, but I am sceptical about his reasoning, Danny: it made him money. If he thought he was going to get slung in jail for a month and not paid one penny, would he have written it? Not a chance. Similarly, had he been able to win races on drugs, I believe he'd have continued to do that. Yes I'm glad he wrote it, but he's still a cheat who prospered via his cheating.
sorry, but you're wrong in both fact and essence.
Perhaps, but that's what I gleaned from his own book. He said he took a short cut and cheated, albeit as a kid, "Because I couldn't stand the thought of getting beat". This attitude I found continued in him as an adult: time and again he missed lots of training because he couldn't be bothered, and ended up being so tired he gave in to drugs as a result, but he was still never going to win anything and always complained of never making ends meet financially. How to do that? Write a kiss and tell.
You must be a doper with a comment like that.
David Walsh and Paul Kimmage absolutely brilliant. Really stood their ground and pursued the great fraud.
Baffling how some can defend Armstrong. The only defence is that he has done a lot for charity. Do the ends justify the means? Hard to say. I'm going with no. He has no remorse over cheating and in a time when it was rife then perhaps. However, protecting himself through using and bullying others, publicly attacking anyone who dared even link him to dopers, never mind asking him personally. That's really low. Threats sent to people who suspected he was breaking the rules. The only way you stopped this behaviour was if you were inside the sport pissing out. People slate Kimmage, but he rode clean or at the very least wanted a clean sport. Lance built a career on lies, drug abuse, intimidation and using cancer survivor as an excuse. Surviving cancer is a lucky thing, but using it to justify cheating is an insult to cancer survivors. Lance the Liar.
Were there others who cheated? Undoubtedly. Does that make it okay? No. Who won all the time? Lance. Who gained the most? Lance. Who deserves to lose the most and be branded the worst of the lot? Lance.
Should dopers be allowed back into the sport? No. Not without a 10-20 year ban, like murderers and thieves. Rehabilitation before reintroduction, if at all. If you dope, you are trying to gain an advantage over your opponents by working less hard and taking credit for false victories. What a role model!
Should pedophiles be allowed near children after what they've done? Hell no. Same principle should be for dopers in cycling.
Should accountants embezzling funds be given another shot at their job? No because the trust is gone. They should be fired and jailed for their crime.
They try the easy way to make gains, they should pay for that. You get your chance to be honest and do your job right. It's not a mistake to cheat, it's a deliberate attempt to break rules. Doping is not a mistake. It's a major choice you make. Cheats make decisions and hope for a second chance to pretend they didn't try get around the rules. No free passes. No exceptions. Why is Lance allowed anywhere near the sport now?
good job paul.
Most athletes dope. Get over it people.
The Tour de France will never be clean. Sport will never be clean. Most athletes dope.
LANCE: "Oprah … I’m telling you, the playing field was level.
This is demonstrably false, for two reasons. One, Armstrong was a hyper-responder to the red cell booster, EPO. That’s because his natural hematocrit ratio was a low level for a pro cyclist, ranging from 38 to 41. The ratio that set off alarms of suspicion in tests (when Armstrong won his 7 Tours) was 50. Armstrong therefore had more room for artificial red blood cell improvement than most cyclists. Two, Armstrong paid the most money (provably $1 million and more likely $5 million during his 7 Tour wins) for exclusive services of the sport’s top blood doping doctor, Italy’s Michele Ferrari, who has been banned from cycling and faces criminal charges in Italy.
When a corporate psychopath is caught…
Lance Armstrong committed PERJURY. You can watch him do it, right here on YouTube. He abused the legal system to prevent people from writing and speaking the truth. He infringed on FREEDOM OF SPEECH by preventing Walsh from publishing his book it the USA.
Absolutely Paul. It is the way he treated people that is his biggest sin.
its clear that not everyone is doping … lol
lance, what is it that you admire about these dopers? you don't have a patent on cancer. when you show up the cancer of doping disappears. – Kimmage = brilliant.
Did not mr Kimmage himself dope ? OR was he forced to? If he did , he has absolutely no credibility whatever ,
Didnt this chap race and also take drugs??
He's just come out and said he doesn't regret it. Soulless bastard
Say fella’s would you like to comment on the national Ireland’s rugby team who beat out England (on English turf) for all that prize money while totally hopped up on MONSTER STEROIDS?? …Naaah you’d rather cry and run political stories about the TROUBLES!!!
He got greedy and came out of retirement and got caught.
Forget the cycling,the actual playing field being leveled. The true evil exists where Armstrong used his fortune and immense business & political connections to attack and destroy honest,truthful people (many he called friend) all to protect his scams. The financial and emotional damage he viciously inflicted on anyone who knew the truth about him is truly depraved AF. He lied and perjured himself all to destroy their reputations knowing full well they were telling the truth and that HE truly was the malignancy in all of this.
Paul Kimmage was humiliated by Armstrong at event press conferences and the audience clapped and laughed at Kimmage.
But he was right all the time and was brave to take his stand. This often happens in politics too where people risk there careers and reputation in order to speak the truth.
everyone is doping, you need a motorbike to win the tour.