Kimmage on David Millar

Richard Adams

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<dFTnc.15145$V97.11678@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "Steve McGinty" <steve_DOT_mcginty@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:42jv90p6gokntgntfn4hs07uv9n0mtdqrt@4ax.com...
> (long article)
>
> Paul was pretty balanced, I think. The direct allegations are the first I've
> heard anything more than generalities. I'm afraid that it doesn't look good
> for David Millar.

The account of Gaumont and Vasseur going to Menuet's room was in the
news April, 9. A couple links:

<http://www.eurosport.com/home/pages/V3/L0/S18/E6083/sport_Lng0_Spo18_Evt6083_Sto572338.shtml>
or
http://tinyurl.com/2bmuc

<http://www.cbc.ca/pcgi-bin/templates/sportsView.cgi?/news/2004/04/09/Sports/gaumont040409>
or
http://tinyurl.com/2b7st

B. Lafferty

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10a1pg5qkjnp21f@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Chris" <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > LOL, that is an understatement. Look at his book. I am happy he wrote
it,
> > but to present himself as an unbiased reporter after that is laughable.
It
> > is not as if he has a whole body of work with that book as only one POV
in
> > one situation. The worst part about his view is that he draws so many
> > conclusions without proof. He chose the role of muckraker, not one as an
> > unbiased reporter. I remember reading several years ago that he had
> decided
> > he would not cover cycling because he was so upset about his "findings"
on
> > doping. It could be that he softened his position over time but as far
as
> I
> > know, he only chose to cover cycling (fairly recently, and definitely
post
> > Festina Tour) in order to expose doping. The guy is clearly the most
> biased
> > person in the subject. Disagree with me if you wish, but then please
> provide
> > me with a name of someone that is more extreme in their bias.
> >
>
> Lafferty.

Boredom leads to trolling, Carl. Try to keep busy. How about a tape of
Dubya doing lines in the Lincoln Bedroom before having sex with Laura?

B. Lafferty

"TM" <xyz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7%4oc.2544$Ua5.1826314@monger.newsread.com...
>
> "Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:c7ql78$qdp@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
> > but keep a full recorded copy for himself if Kimmage
> > decided to turn phrases.
> >
>
> That sounds like fun.
>
> What does he have to gain from talking with someone who clearly has an ax
to
> grind? Nothing. I am no fan of David Millar, but this falls into the why
> you shouldn't wrestle with a pig bit of folk wisdom - you both end up
muddy
> and the pig likes it.

Then again, Kimmage's Rough Ride won the William Hill Sports Book of the
Year award in 1990 (A fellow named Lance Armstron won the award in 2000 for
his first book). Kimmage's latest book, Full Time: the Secret Life of Tony
Cascarino, has apparently been very well received.

When Kimmage's Rough Ride was first published he was deemed anathama by
nearly all the riders in the pro peloton. He was labeled as just a
disgruntled no-hoper of a rider with an axe to grind. Events since then
have clearly demonstrated that what he observed, participated and wrote
about, was not a mere abberation by one of a small group of bad apples in
the sport. Unlike the sport's media promoters (Bobbke, Sherwin, Liggett,
Duffield, etc.) he's an investigative reporter who is pursuing facts.

While I've read people here attack him for bias, I've not seen anyone able
to factually dispute anything that he wrote in the article cited at the
beginning of this thread.

From David Millar's point of view, it's completely understandable that he
would not want to be interviewd under circumstances over which he did not
have total control--he did offer to answer written questions submitted in
advance. Not many non-toady reporters will agree to that kind of journalism.
It's going to be an interesting year for David MIllar.

Carl Sundquist

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:cz7oc.2018$zO3.250@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> >
> > Lafferty.
>
> Boredom leads to trolling, Carl. Try to keep busy. How about a tape of
> Dubya doing lines in the Lincoln Bedroom before having sex with Laura?
>
>

He's here in town today. Maybe I'll ask him for you.

What's your address?

Carl Sundquist

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
>
> While I've read people here attack him for bias, I've not seen anyone able
> to factually dispute anything that he wrote in the article cited at the
> beginning of this thread.
>

The thrust of the story was as much about Kimmage and his manipulations to
try to get Millar to talk to him as anything else. His "conversations" with
Migraine and Galametz had few facts and many veiled implications. If they
were so sure, then why not say so? Would you say that Kimmage was trying to
imply something about Millar, based on his refusal to speak with him? If
not, why is it part of the story?

This is rbr, not a courtroom. Our resources for factual information
regarding the goings-on of the European peloton are _woefully_ small. We are
far better off discussing WMD, religion, economics, etc. As you should well
know, facts and the truth are not always the same thing. Just because
Kimmage uses facts in his stories does not mean he is objective. Part of his
task is to uncover and provide information. Another part of his task is to
sell it for profit.

I'm not saying the sport is clean, but I'm on the side of those who say
Millar was better off not speaking with Kimmage.

Carl Sundquist

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
>
> Boredom leads to trolling, Carl. Try to keep busy. How about a tape of
> Dubya doing lines in the Lincoln Bedroom before having sex with Laura?
>

"It is a horrible demoralizing thing to be a lawyer. You look for such low
motives in everyone and everything." -- Katherine Hinkson

B. Lafferty

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10a253q82qub320@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
> >
> > While I've read people here attack him for bias, I've not seen anyone
able
> > to factually dispute anything that he wrote in the article cited at the
> > beginning of this thread.
> >
>
> The thrust of the story was as much about Kimmage and his manipulations to
> try to get Millar to talk to him as anything else. His "conversations"
with
> Migraine and Galametz had few facts and many veiled implications. If they
> were so sure, then why not say so? Would you say that Kimmage was trying
to
> imply something about Millar, based on his refusal to speak with him? If
> not, why is it part of the story?

Millar is a world champion on a team implicated in doping (unless you
accept that it wasn't the team but a few of those damn bad apples again).
Charges were made by a teammate that Millar used illegal products. So,
while he didn't get to do an interview in a formal sense, he did speak with
Millar and reported on that and the background for questions he wanted to
ask Millar. What I find interesting is that Millar said he had no problem
being interviewed by Walsh or Fotheringham, both of whom have written highly
critical articles about doping in the sport. I suspect that the problem for
Kimmage in gaining access to MIllar and other members of the pro peloton, is
the fallout from daring to publish Rough Ride and become the first to really
break the code of silence.

I don't think any of us can say what Kimmage was trying to imply about
Millar's refusal, if there was any implication at all.

>
> This is rbr, not a courtroom.

Thank God for that.

> Our resources for factual information
> regarding the goings-on of the European peloton are _woefully_ small. We
are
> far better off discussing WMD, religion, economics, etc.

We aren't exactly existing in a dark closet without a flashlight, are we
now? We know that cycling has a serious drug problem (at least 5% of the
riders according to the UCI and perhaps 30% according to Tom Kunich), just
as we knew that Iraq no longer had WMDs.

As you should well
> know, facts and the truth are not always the same thing.

Godel proved that truths will always exist outside any formal system such as
language or belief. Facts are things we all deal with every day. It's all a
question of which facts are verifiable and the degree of certainty to attach
to them.

Just because
> Kimmage uses facts in his stories does not mean he is objective. Part of
his
> task is to uncover and provide information. Another part of his task is to
> sell it for profit.

I'd be curious to know if Kimmage was given an assignment to interview
Millar by his editor. My understanding is that he's a paid staff
journalist. Woodward and Bernstein did make a profit off All the President's
Men, IIRC. I'll bet Woodward is profiting from his latest books on Dubya.
Profit isn't a very good indicator of truth in journalism.

>
> I'm not saying the sport is clean, but I'm on the side of those who say
> Millar was better off not speaking with Kimmage.

From Millar's standpoint, I agree it was in his interest not to speak with
Kimmage. I suspect he's been advised not to talk to some other reporters as
well.

Now where's that Linda-Monica video??

B. Lafferty

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10a258jsn11b05a@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
> >
> > Boredom leads to trolling, Carl. Try to keep busy. How about a tape of
> > Dubya doing lines in the Lincoln Bedroom before having sex with Laura?
> >
>
> "It is a horrible demoralizing thing to be a lawyer. You look for such low
> motives in everyone and everything." -- Katherine Hinkson

Lawyers know life practically. A bookish man should always have them to
converse with.-- Samuel Johnson

matabala

> >
> > "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
>
> I don't think any of us can say what Kimmage was trying to imply about
> Millar's refusal, if there was any implication at all.

Just today I TWICE watched a French TV news report of a minute or so which
shows a journalist left standing outside a gate after being refused an
interview with the person inside the visible home. The reporter identifies
herself and all you hear is a female voice saying "we don't talk to
reporters" or something to that effect. The woman replying to the reporter
is suggested to be a doctor suspected of falsifying some autopsy reports
years ago in what is know seen as a homicide investigation. All that to say
that whoever produced that news reports, we're talking national TV here, was
strongly implying that the woman's refusal be perceived in the worst
possible light. In the filming and airing of that scene, the negative
implications of her resolute refusal are clear to the viewer.
..

B. Lafferty

"matabala" <matabala@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:c7rfrn$6ap$1@news-reader2.wanadoo.fr...
>
> > >
> > > "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
> >
> > I don't think any of us can say what Kimmage was trying to imply about
> > Millar's refusal, if there was any implication at all.
>
> Just today I TWICE watched a French TV news report of a minute or so which
> shows a journalist left standing outside a gate after being refused an
> interview with the person inside the visible home. The reporter
identifies
> herself and all you hear is a female voice saying "we don't talk to
> reporters" or something to that effect. The woman replying to the
reporter
> is suggested to be a doctor suspected of falsifying some autopsy reports
> years ago in what is know seen as a homicide investigation. All that to
say
> that whoever produced that news reports, we're talking national TV here,
was
> strongly implying that the woman's refusal be perceived in the worst
> possible light. In the filming and airing of that scene, the negative
> implications of her resolute refusal are clear to the viewer.

Yes, one can structure a presentation so that a specific implication can be
drawn. What implications do you draw from the facts in Kimmage's article?

The facts are:
1. Several present and former Cofidis riders/personel have been implicated
in using/providing illegal performance enhancing products.
2. A report was apparently produced by a physician for the team noting
recreational drug use by the team members.( Note that Donati has spoken
recently to the blurred line between recreational and performance enhancing
drugs used by cyclists)
3. A team member under judicial inquiry implicated Millar in drug use to
improve performance.
4. A former girlfriend, IIRC, implicated Millar in drug use.
5. Millar refused to be interviewed by Kimmage but said he would speak to
David Walsh or William Fotheringham.
6. Milars solicitors sent Kimmage a mildly threatening pre-emptive strike
letter.
7. Kimmage's history of revelatory writing on drugs in cycling is known to
Millar.

Possible conclusions to be drawn:

1. David Millar detests Kimmage and is afraid of having a hatchet job done
on himself.
2. David Millar is fearful of being asked difficult questions for which he
has no adequate/plausable answers. (possiblely because he is either clean or
dirty)
3. David Millar is clean and beleives he has nothing to gain from the
interview.
4. David Millar is guilty of using performance enhancing drugs and is
fearful of being questioned by a reporter who knows the cycling scene and
will not give quarter during questioning.
5. Kimmage is out to unfairly pain all pro cyclists as drug abusers.
6. Kimmage is a reporter on assignment who could not complete the assignment
due to the subject's refusal to be interviewed and therefore wrote what he
could as to what ocurred.

Perhaps there are other conclusions. Feel free to add to them based on the
article.

IMO, numbers 1,2, and 6 are the most likely.

Tom Kunich

"TM" <xyz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7%4oc.2544$Ua5.1826314@monger.newsread.com...
>
> "Richard Adams" <ackthpt@concentric.net> wrote in message
> news:c7ql78$qdp@dispatch.concentric.net...
>
> > but keep a full recorded copy for himself if Kimmage
> > decided to turn phrases.
> >
>
> That sounds like fun.
>
> What does he have to gain from talking with someone who clearly has an ax
to
> grind? Nothing. I am no fan of David Millar, but this falls into the why
> you shouldn't wrestle with a pig bit of folk wisdom - you both end up
muddy
> and the pig likes it.

Paul has no "axe to grind" concerning David Millar. He might concievably
have one to grind concerning professional racing as a whole but I doubt it
after this amount of time. He raced, what, 20 years ago now?

He does have a concern that professional racing become dope free. And I
think that most of us here share that same concern do we not? Oh, right,
except for Albright, Trdina and Lafferty who want to see a "AA Fuel" class
in professional racing.

Tom Kunich

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:jX8oc.6190$KE6.32@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> Millar is a world champion on a team implicated in doping (unless you
> accept that it wasn't the team but a few of those damn bad apples again).
> Charges were made by a teammate that Millar used illegal products.

Uh, did anyone say that Millar had used performance enhancing products? I
sure didn't notice that. Did you? I did note that he was using some happy
powder which is bad enough, but surely anyone could see that the implication
would be made that having used one illegal drug he might not hesitate to use
others.

matabala

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:K1coc.6416$KE6.6048@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "matabala" <matabala@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
> news:c7rfrn$6ap$1@news-reader2.wanadoo.fr...
> >
> > > >
> > > > "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
> > >
> > > I don't think any of us can say what Kimmage was trying to imply about
> > > Millar's refusal, if there was any implication at all.
> >
> > Just today I TWICE watched a French TV news report of a minute or so
which
> > shows a journalist left standing outside a gate after being refused an
> > interview with the person inside the visible home. The reporter
> identifies
> > herself and all you hear is a female voice saying "we don't talk to
> > reporters" or something to that effect. The woman replying to the
> reporter
> > is suggested to be a doctor suspected of falsifying some autopsy reports
> > years ago in what is know seen as a homicide investigation. All that to
> say
> > that whoever produced that news reports, we're talking national TV here,
> was
> > strongly implying that the woman's refusal be perceived in the worst
> > possible light. In the filming and airing of that scene, the negative
> > implications of her resolute refusal are clear to the viewer.
>
What implications do you draw from the facts in Kimmage's article?
>

So you now DO believe he was making at least some implications?

Benjamin Weiner

B. Lafferty <Magni@Italia.com> wrote:

> Yes, one can structure a presentation so that a specific implication can be
> drawn. What implications do you draw from the facts in Kimmage's article?

English please! Implications are made, _inferences_ are drawn.
If there are any implications in Kimmage's article, he's
making them, and you're drawing inferences.

Does anyone else find the story about Millar ordering the
doctor to inject Gaumont and Vasseur with his leftover
special preparation just before the stage to the Champs
a little weird? Last year the team was so decentralized
that nobody even rode for Millar (so he said), they changed
the director, and all of a sudden Millar can play patron and
dictate "Doctor, inject these men?" Not to mention, why are
these clowns charging up for the stage to the Champs Elysees?
It's not like they're gonna go in a long break and neither
Gaumont nor Vasseur is an obvious pick for the sprint.
Of course, asking for logic may be a little much. I don't
necessarily disbelieve the story, I just don't see any
sense in it either.