Kimmage on David Millar

B. Lafferty

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10a46k9prpsihdb@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > Boredom leads to trolling, Carl. Try to keep busy.
>
> People who live in glass houses...

I may be bored, but I don't do much trolling compared to most of the
denizens of rbr.
>
> 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
> >
>
> I'll remember that quote every time I read about a frivolous lawsuit.

It takes a jury to decide what is or is not frivolous. I'm waiting for the
Linda-Monica video. Soon, please.....

Carl Sundquist

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
>
> 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.
>

Why is it you give credit for LANCE's book to him and Cascarino's book to
Kimmage? They were both ghost written.

Carl Sundquist

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
> >
> > 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.

How many news stories do you read where the subject's refusal and/or terms
of an interview become the story? It makes Kimmage appear desperate. "Oh
dear, what have I done to upset him?" is not a normal point of view in a
newspaper report.

> 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 agree. But the fact that he says he is willing to sit with either of them
shoots holes in a lot of the possible conclusions in your other post.

> 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.

Perhaps. If so, then Kimmage was the wrong man for the task.


> 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.

I don't believe you. If there was no point to it, then it wouldn't have
become the story itself.


> > 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.
>

Relatively speaking, I believe we are. Other than Ewoud dusting Boogerd on
training ride sprints and Jeff Jones, there are very, very few denizens of
rbr who are privy to first hand information about the Euro peloton.
Virtually everything we read, see and hear about them is information that
has been published in one form or another. Using your metaphor, I would say
we are in a dark closet with a small penlight with a battery that is weak.
Not that all that darkness is full of incriminating information, just that
we know very little of what really goes on behind the scenes. That rbr can
sustain a thread about LANCE's chamois cream shows as much.


>
> 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.

The profit has both personal and professional aspects. Regardless of its
content, the article is partly to inform and partly to sell newspapers. When
you write "When asked for comments/ an interview, Millar refused.", it
doesn't sell newspapers.


>
> Now where's that Linda-Monica video??

Safely stashed with "The Dress", and you won't be getting your hands on
either of them. When I lent out the Nixon White House Basement Tapes, they
were returned with an 18 minute section deleted. You can't trust anybody.

TM

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:IMcoc.16656$Hs1.13177@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> Paul has no "axe to grind" concerning David Millar.

Reading his article left me with the impression that he wanted to be at the
center of a controversy. I think we both would agree that he portrays
himself as a participant more than an objective fact finder in the piece. I
am convinced that his mind is made up and now he is looking to write a
story. That is what I meant about an ax to grind. Not that he had any
personal animosity for Millar because of professional jealousy or a
squabble.

Whether or not he is correct, however, is another story entirely. I just
don't fault Millar for not talking to Kimmage and believe that I can have
that opinion without weighing in on Millar's guilt or innocence.

SMMB

"TM" <xyz@yahoo.com> a écrit dans le message de :
news:xGqoc.1951$Hf.1157783@newshog.newsread.com...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:IMcoc.16656$Hs1.13177@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Paul has no "axe to grind" concerning David Millar.
>
> Reading his article left me with the impression that he wanted to be at
the
> center of a controversy.

I think it is symptomatic of a trend that the journalist or journalism
becomes the focus of writing, instead of the facts and texture of reality
that could be conveyed.

I think Millar's reply was sound - he is not willing to speak to just anyone
who has a press badge. And the inverse should also be true, that not every
source be touted as gospel, just because the person simply spoke.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Paris FR

B. Lafferty

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10a4976bpg61557@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Why is it you give credit for LANCE's book to him and Cascarino's book to
> Kimmage? They were both ghost written.

On the title page of Armstrong's book it says that it's by "Lance Armstrong
with Sally Jenkins." Thus the William Hill awards list Armstrong as the
year 2000 winner--not Sally Jenkins.

The title on Cascarino book reads, "Full Time. The Secret Life of Tony
Cascarino as told to Paul Kimmage." If it wins the next William Hill
we'll see if the award goes to Kimmage or Cascarino. Odds on it being
Kimmage?

B. Lafferty

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10a49jc9mgufbbe@corp.supernews.com...
>> How many news stories do you read where the subject's refusal and/or
terms
> of an interview become the story?

Haven't a clue as I don't count them.

> It makes Kimmage appear desperate. "Oh
> dear, what have I done to upset him?" is not a normal point of view in a
> newspaper report.

I thought it was rather creative the way he sort of turned it into a travel
piece. As for desperate.......I don't get that impression, or is that an
implication or a drawn conclusion? God, it's so confusing.

>
> > 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 agree. But the fact that he says he is willing to sit with either of
them
> shoots holes in a lot of the possible conclusions in your other post.

Maybe. He may just have a false sense of security with Walsh and
Fotheringham.

>
> > 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.
>
> Perhaps. If so, then Kimmage was the wrong man for the task.

Or the right man as the article was published. One could argue that the
editor took the position that it was newsworth and would contribute to
sales.

>
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't believe you. If there was no point to it, then it wouldn't have
> become the story itself.

OK. Don't beleive me when I write that I don't think any of us can know
what Kimmage's intended implication was, if any. I'm not the person to
answer that; Kimmage is.

>
>
> > > 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.
> >
>
> Relatively speaking, I believe we are. Other than Ewoud dusting Boogerd on
> training ride sprints and Jeff Jones, there are very, very few denizens of
> rbr who are privy to first hand information about the Euro peloton.
> Virtually everything we read, see and hear about them is information that
> has been published in one form or another.

Oh come now! We have not only news reports but police reports, judicial
investigation findings, rider/supplier admissions and convictions, Olympic
Committee reports to name just some of the sources. First hand would be
someone either doing the drugs or witnessing the use or supply of the drugs.
We have those reports from the sources noted above.

> Using your metaphor, I would say
> we are in a dark closet with a small penlight with a battery that is weak.
> Not that all that darkness is full of incriminating information, just that
> we know very little of what really goes on behind the scenes.

We'll just have to agree to diagree. We have learned a good deal of what
has been going on behind the scenes since the Festina Affair. There will no
doubt be more to come.

>That rbr can
> sustain a thread about LANCE's chamois cream shows as much.

No. It shows an number of possible things:
1. Lots of rbr folks have sore butts.
2. Lots of rbr folks are facinated by one balled cyclists.
3. rbr is no longer a significant source for information and intelligent
discussion.

What would you rather have, a helmet thread or an ASSOS cream thread?

>
>
>> The profit has both personal and professional aspects. Regardless of its
> content, the article is partly to inform and partly to sell newspapers.
When
> you write "When asked for comments/ an interview, Millar refused.", it
> doesn't sell newspapers.

Best to ask his editor about that.
>
>
> >
> > Now where's that Linda-Monica video??
>
> Safely stashed with "The Dress", and you won't be getting your hands on
> either of them. When I lent out the Nixon White House Basement Tapes, they
> were returned with an 18 minute section deleted. You can't trust anybody.

Very lame excuse.

Kyle Legate

Benjamin Weiner wrote:
>
> 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?
>
The cyclingnews.com report for that stage mentions neither Gaumont nor
Vasseur, which leads me to infer that they were injected with
Actio-something.

Davide Tosi

"Chris" <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote:

>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.

Don't know about more or less, but there's a journalist named eugenio
capodacqua who shares the same agenda. He's like a broken record, talking
always the same anti-doping rethoric every time he writes something about
sports (and cycling in particular).

Tom Schulenburg

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:K1coc.6416$KE6.6048@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> 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.
>


Add to the Facts:

1. David Moncoutie is a member of Cofidis, and widely agreed to be one of
the "cleanist" riders in the Peloton

2. Millar has been very outspoken regarding the lack of support by the team
and its riders

3. Millar dropped out of the Vuelta in protest (while sitting in the top 10
GC), denying his teamates a share of the prize money

4. "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned, nor hell a fury like a
woman scorned"


We can infer:

1. It's possible that some riders on Cofidis are clean

2. Millar doesn't make it easy for his team or teamates to like him.

3. An ex girlfriend just might have another agenda when making accusations.


-T

Tom Kunich

"TM" <xyz@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xGqoc.1951$Hf.1157783@newshog.newsread.com...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:IMcoc.16656$Hs1.13177@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Paul has no "axe to grind" concerning David Millar.
>
> Reading his article left me with the impression that he wanted to be at
the
> center of a controversy.

Well, it left me thinking that he just wanted to get the story. Obviously
David Millar is hesitant to talk to someone that knows how the business
goes. As someone stated, that isn't a condemnation of Millar since it could
mean either he is clean or dirty equally well.

> I think we both would agree that he portrays
> himself as a participant more than an objective fact finder in the piece.

I don't get that at all. One thing to remember is that even the finest
writers in the world can be misread and journalists are hardly the finest
writers in the world. Don't try to read too much into what Kimmage is
saying. What he IS saying is that there is a load of controvery and when he
tried to interview Millar about it, David refused. All that means to me is
that Millar doesn't want to talk about drug use and that ain't very good in
someone as in the public eye as the best Brit bicycle racer.

> Whether or not he is correct, however, is another story entirely. I just
> don't fault Millar for not talking to Kimmage and believe that I can have
> that opinion without weighing in on Millar's guilt or innocence.

I don't "fault" Millar either. But neither do I Kimmage who has plenty of
reasons to want to get the doping in cycling into the public eye and perhaps
end it forever.

Tom Kunich

"Davide Tosi" <davide.tosi@comune.re.it> wrote in message
news:40a24e85.707112211@news.individual.de...
> "Chris" <chrismcreynolds@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >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.
>
> Don't know about more or less, but there's a journalist named eugenio
> capodacqua who shares the same agenda. He's like a broken record, talking
> always the same anti-doping rethoric every time he writes something about
> sports (and cycling in particular).

Isn't that spelled "Lafferty"?

Stewart Fleming

Fairly straightforward to unravel one of the claims in there.
What was the team performance profile for Cofidis in the stage
immediately following the ITT in last year's tour?

Stewart Fleming

Richard Adams wrote:


> If you're telling the truth, there's less to remember. Millar should
> have had little to fear of having an interview, with or without his own
> team present, but keep a full recorded copy for himself if Kimmage
> decided to turn phrases.

The tactic of taking your lawyer to an interview can backfire. If the
journo has some dirt, they can ask e.g. "Did you take a
performance-enhancing substance prior to the ITT in last year's Tour?"
If you say yes, you're stuffed; if you say no and it comes out that
there is evidence that you did, you're stuffed; if you refer to your
lawyer and they tell you not to answer the question, you're stuffed.