Kimmage on David Millar

Richard Adams

Stewart Fleming wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>

All David has to do is stick to the line he's already taken, he's clean,
he doesn't dope, he never has, etc.

If if comes out in evidence he has, he's stuffed anyway.

Sharon Peters

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message news:<dAsoc.7100$KE6.2786@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "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.


Dearest Brian,

You make me so hot when you get pissy!

Can we meet at your place tonight?

- Sharon

Sharon Peters

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message news:<dAsoc.7100$KE6.2786@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> "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.


Dearest Brian,

You make me so hot when you get pissy!

Can we meet at your place tonight?

- Sharon

B. Lafferty

"Sharon Peters" <sharon_peters_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55c36b95.0405121826.40acbc4e@posting.google.com...
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:<dAsoc.7100$KE6.2786@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> > "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.
>
>
> Dearest Brian,
>
> You make me so hot when you get pissy!
>
> Can we meet at your place tonight?
>
> - Sharon

Sharon Darling,

No. I'm busy.

Best,
Brian

Carl Sundquist

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
news:gisoc.7090$KE6.5334@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "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?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1071715,00.html

"Some people will say men are obsessed with sex. That may be true in part,
as Paul Kimmage, the ghostwriter for my autobiography, once joked to a
female publisher when we were discussing the book."

Carl Sundquist

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

It didn't take a jury to figure out that trying to sue Bianchi for an out of
warranty broken frame would be frivolous.

Carl Sundquist

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

> >> 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.

Why are you being evasive? You don't otherwise suppress your opinions.

>
> > 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.

That's nice. I'm sure his editor was quite pleased to send out Kimmage on a
hard news story and have him return with a travel piece.

> >
> > > 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.

Irrelevant. Your possible conclusions were based on his perceptions.

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.


> > 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.

What are the odds that the sports editor and leisure & travel editor are one
and the same?

> >
> > 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.

You are an attorney and unable to establish motives?

> >
> > 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.

Not being fixated on the drug issue, I was referring to cycling life in
general in the euro peloton. The drug issue is only part of that.

If we know so much, why are the Manzanos, Cofidis moratorium on racing,
etc., such relevations? How is it that a lowly female US track racer can get
ahold of an undetectable designer steroid, yet we only hear of it after she
is finally caught?

>
> 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.

No doubt.
>
> >That rbr can
> > sustain a thread about LANCE's chamois cream shows as much.
>
> No.

Yes.

> 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.

It shows other things, too. It shows that rbr'ers will go to great lengths
to obtain something they feel must satisfy the requirements of those in the
euro peloton, which is not readily available information.

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


Neither. I find both subjects boring. Perhaps that was my impetus to troll.


> >> 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.

The same editor who accepts a travel piece in lieu of an assigned hard news
story?
> > >
> > > 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.

Too bad.

B. Lafferty

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10a6pd1d7ukfq30@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> 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.
>
> Why are you being evasive? You don't otherwise suppress your opinions.
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> That's nice. I'm sure his editor was quite pleased to send out Kimmage on
a
> hard news story and have him return with a travel piece.
>
> > >
> > > > 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.
>
> Irrelevant. Your possible conclusions were based on his perceptions.
>
> 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.
>
>
> > > 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.
>
> What are the odds that the sports editor and leisure & travel editor are
one
> and the same?
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> You are an attorney and unable to establish motives?
>
> > >
> > > 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.
>
> Not being fixated on the drug issue, I was referring to cycling life in
> general in the euro peloton. The drug issue is only part of that.
>
> If we know so much, why are the Manzanos, Cofidis moratorium on racing,
> etc., such relevations? How is it that a lowly female US track racer can
get
> ahold of an undetectable designer steroid, yet we only hear of it after
she
> is finally caught?
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> No doubt.
> >
> > >That rbr can
> > > sustain a thread about LANCE's chamois cream shows as much.
> >
> > No.
>
> Yes.
>
> > 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.
>
> It shows other things, too. It shows that rbr'ers will go to great lengths
> to obtain something they feel must satisfy the requirements of those in
the
> euro peloton, which is not readily available information.
>
> > What would you rather have, a helmet thread or an ASSOS cream thread?
>
>
> Neither. I find both subjects boring. Perhaps that was my impetus to
troll.
>
>
> > >> 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.
>
> The same editor who accepts a travel piece in lieu of an assigned hard
news
> story?
> > > >
> > > > 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.
>
> Too bad.
>
>

Whatever.

B. Lafferty

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10a6niv989epp03@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
> > > >
> > > > 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.....
> >
>
> It didn't take a jury to figure out that trying to sue Bianchi for an out
of
> warranty broken frame would be frivolous.

True, but several lawyers here at rbr told him it would be frivolus to sue.

B. Lafferty

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10a6nd0og423i5e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
> news:gisoc.7090$KE6.5334@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "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?
>
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1071715,00.html
>
> "Some people will say men are obsessed with sex. That may be true in part,
> as Paul Kimmage, the ghostwriter for my autobiography, once joked to a
> female publisher when we were discussing the book."

Hmmm. So are you saying that Armstrong got it on with Sally? ;-)

Steven L. Sheffield

On 05/13/2004 05:35 AM, in article 10a6nd0og423i5e@corp.supernews.com, "Carl
Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote:

>
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message
> news:gisoc.7090$KE6.5334@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "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?
>
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1071715,00.html
>
> "Some people will say men are obsessed with sex. That may be true in part,
> as Paul Kimmage, the ghostwriter for my autobiography, once joked to a
> female publisher when we were discussing the book."


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...650542/veluninc OR
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1903650542/

"Full Time: the Secret Life of Tony Cascarino"
by Paul Kimmage

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...179613/veluninc

"It's Not About the Bike: My Journey Back to Life"
by Lance Armstrong, Sally Jenkins (Contributor)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...508719/veluninc

"Every Second Counts"
by Lance Armstrong (Author)

In the opening of Lance Armstrong's memoir, Every Second Counts (co-authored
by Sally Jenkins), he reflects: "Generally, one of the hardest things in the
world to do is something twice."



My take: Lance wrote his two books, with a lot assistance from Sally
Jenkins to polish the language and give it structure ... She was essentially
an editor who was more directly involved in the actual writing of it.

OTOH, Kimmage WROTE the "auto"biography of Tony Cascarino, based on taped
conversations and what-not.



--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea aye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

Carl Sundquist

"B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message > >
> >
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1071715,00.html
> >
> > "Some people will say men are obsessed with sex. That may be true in
part,
> > as Paul Kimmage, the ghostwriter for my autobiography, once joked to a
> > female publisher when we were discussing the book."
>
> Hmmm. So are you saying that Armstrong got it on with Sally? ;-)
>
>

Nope, and I'm not saying Cascarino got it on with Kimmage either!

TM

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:_Bwoc.17833
>
> 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.
>

There is the really interesting part of this Cofidis scandal to me. Pro
cycling follows the Golden Rule (he who has the gold rules) and I wonder if
those controlling the purse strings are finally getting serious about
wanting a clean team. On the one hand, they let the management go which
sends a very clear signal. On the other, Cofidis has had as much if not
more publicity than Gerolsteiner this spring and any moron can walk through
an airport with drugs while repeating Rebellin's performance will be much
more difficult.

I don't think cycling will be ever free of drugs, but I think it can become
credible with the public if it follows the example of American baseball and
gambling. In 1919, the Black Sox scandal put the credibility of baseball
into question with the public. Life bans sent a clear message and while
individual players ( Pete Rose) may violate league policy the public does
not fault baseball as a whole.

Contrast this with the treatment of performance drugs in baseball and
cycling today. The player's union in baseball and the lack of a strong
sanctioning body in cycling have resulted in a culture where anything goes
because there are no serious consequences for anyone. I think in both
instances, once everybody agrees that what they want is a clean sport, then
penalties should be structured to reflect that fact. I have not done any
serious looking into the matter, but this may be where the Pro Tour can help
cycling in the long run. If they hold the key to the prestigious events,
then in theory, they will have the ability to set rules for entry. That
opens the door to a life ban with consequences.

B. Lafferty

"Carl Sundquist" <carlsun@cox-internet.com> wrote in message
news:10a728347li4s57@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "B. Lafferty" <Magni@Italia.com> wrote in message > >
> > >
> > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...1071715,00.html
> > >
> > > "Some people will say men are obsessed with sex. That may be true in
> part,
> > > as Paul Kimmage, the ghostwriter for my autobiography, once joked to a
> > > female publisher when we were discussing the book."
> >
> > Hmmm. So are you saying that Armstrong got it on with Sally? ;-)
> >
> >
>
> Nope, and I'm not saying Cascarino got it on with Kimmage either!


And as a gay friend from NYC used to say, "One hole is as good as another."