New Kimmage Interview



classic1

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2006
11,478
2,067
113
fscyclist said:
I have. I think he comes across as a bitter old man. Not saying I disagree with what he says, but his presentation could be better. Speaking of which, I think LA owned him at that press conference. He came off as a anti-doping champion only to the very small community of cyclists who agree with him. However, LA's demagoguery won the day for the general populus. It also helped that LA had a microphone and Kimmage didn't.
Bitter? Maybe. But he wasn't 'a guy who rationalized his lack of success as a professional cyclist by bitching and moaning about everyone else doping'.

He actually states in the book that the riders in the 80's were a victim of the system. At no point do I recall him stating he would have been a champion with everyone else being off the dope. He was at best a journeyman - an assessment I suspect he himself would agree with.
 

fscyclist

New Member
Jul 30, 2006
753
0
0
classic1 said:
Bitter? Maybe. But he wasn't 'a guy who rationalized his lack of success as a professional cyclist by bitching and moaning about everyone else doping'.

He actually states in the book that the riders in the 80's were a victim of the system. At no point do I recall him stating he would have been a champion with everyone else being off the dope. He was at best a journeyman - an assessment I suspect he himself would agree with.
I agree, he clearly realized his limitations with or without drugs. I just think he comes across as bitter (perhaps cynical is a better word) in his writing. I know I'm cynical, but I also don't write and interview for a living.
 

classic1

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2006
11,478
2,067
113
fscyclist said:
I agree, he clearly realized his limitations with or without drugs. I just think he comes across as bitter (perhaps cynical is a better word) in his writing. I know I'm cynical, but I also don't write and interview for a living.
I reckoned he was very naive when he went over to Europe. It comes across to me in the book that perhaps he was a bit sheltered or a bit innocent.

I think you are right, cynical is probably a better description than bitter. He was cynical about 'the system' as it existed when he was racing, which was pretty much the same as it was in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. Now I think he is cynical about the riders, because the circumstances today are different to the old days (i.e more money in the sport, the substances like EPO being used since the early 1990's - which is after his career, the damage that's happened to the sport with the scandals post 1998, the bald faced lies, the relationships etc)
 

DV1976

New Member
Sep 29, 2004
419
0
0
IH8LANCE said:
Why? Kimmage is a source of amusement, not anger. Here's a guy who rationalized his lack of success as a professional cyclist by bitching and moaning about everyone else doping. Then upon retiring after winning exactly nothing during his entire worthless career, he admitted he was a doper himself for the sake of a book deal, essentially confirming his status as a disingenuous weasel.

In the context of all that, Lim shows up with this:

"I always found him to be a very likeable character and I was not surprised when he took up journalism and showed the same vigour and honesty.
And he was a superb cyclist too."

"Superb cyclist". "Vigour and honesty".

I'm sorry, to be angry I'd have to stop laughing so hard, and it's just not possible at the moment. Lim is mining comedy gold, and I love it.
You havent read the book have you?
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
IH8LANCE said:
Why? Kimmage is a source of amusement, not anger. Here's a guy who rationalized his lack of success as a professional cyclist by bitching and moaning about everyone else doping. Then upon retiring after winning exactly nothing during his entire worthless career, he admitted he was a doper himself for the sake of a book deal, essentially confirming his status as a disingenuous weasel.

In the context of all that, Lim shows up with this:

"I always found him to be a very likeable character and I was not surprised when he took up journalism and showed the same vigour and honesty.
And he was a superb cyclist too."

"Superb cyclist". "Vigour and honesty".

I'm sorry, to be angry I'd have to stop laughing so hard, and it's just not possible at the moment. Lim is mining comedy gold, and I love it.

Kimmage was a superb rider - at amateur level.
That was the context in which I referred to Kimmage as being a superb rider, having said that I raced against Kimmage over 25 years ago.
Your comprehension skills need some work.

I would also suggest that any rider who has the ability to ride at professioanl level in Europe aren't as you put it had an entirely worthless career.

Try reading Kimmages book.
You might learn something instead of continually floundering here.
 

fscyclist

New Member
Jul 30, 2006
753
0
0
classic1 said:
I reckoned he was very naive when he went over to Europe. It comes across to me in the book that perhaps he was a bit sheltered or a bit innocent.

I think you are right, cynical is probably a better description than bitter. He was cynical about 'the system' as it existed when he was racing, which was pretty much the same as it was in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's. Now I think he is cynical about the riders, because the circumstances today are different to the old days (i.e more money in the sport, the substances like EPO being used since the early 1990's - which is after his career, the damage that's happened to the sport with the scandals post 1998, the bald faced lies, the relationships etc)
What I think is interesting is he seems cynical towards most everything (even things away from cycling) except for this faith he has put in the Garmin team. I think that's dangerous for a few reasons. First, it's a faith that may be easily shattered. He mentions how he put his neck on the line for those guys (as he did for Kohl), yet he gives no specifics as to why he thinks they are clean and the others aren't. Not to mention it is impossible to prove an individual, not to mention an entire team is clean. Second, it shows significant bias. Just because you hang out on a bus with some dudes and ask them quesitons and they seem really 'cool' doesn't make them clean. In other words, he's giving them a free pass and coming down on everyone else without any evidence. I have yet to see anything data driven that shows Garmin is any cleaner than another team. I know you may retort about their 'internal testing' but that is a severe conflict of interest and can be used to promote cheating just as easily as prevent it. Really what it comes down to is that I think he is an 'emotional' journalist. I suppose that is fine as most of the articles I've read from him are opinion pieces, but for a guy who criticizes and calls his colleagues 'complicit' I think he's in the same boat.

What I find most significant in all this is that doping still remains the real story of cycling. The races have clearly taken a back seat to the interest in dopers, their methods, and whether someone is clean or dirty. Almost every interview centers around it, and I think it will continue to be the central story of pro racing for a long time to come.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
fscyclist said:
What I think is interesting is he seems cynical towards most everything (even things away from cycling) except for this faith he has put in the Garmin team.

If you read Kimmages interviews with non-cycling sportspeople, I think you will see that PK isn't cycnical towards everything as you put it.
Have you read the interviews that he publishes with the Sunday Times?
The interviews are with a widerange of sports people, from many different sports.

Just a sample :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/paul_kimmage/article5162381.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/columnists/paul_kimmage/article5258022.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article4969486.ece


Re Garmin : if you read the Sunday Times in July 2008, you would see the article which Kimmage posted and how he was invited by Jonathan Vaughters
to join the team and to ask whatever questions PK felt like asking.
Kimmage prefaced that particular piece by saying that Vaughters invitation came as a surprise to Him (PK) and that he only accepted the invitation if he had unrestricted access to Garmin.
That's hardly cycnical.



fscyclist said:
Really what it comes down to is that I think he is an 'emotional' journalist. I suppose that is fine as most of the articles I've read from him are opinion pieces, but for a guy who criticizes and calls his colleagues 'complicit' I think he's in the same boat.

You're entitled to express your opinion.

I happen to disagree with your view that Kimmage is an "emotional journalist".

Given that he has won many wards for his articles, his peers seem to think he does good work too.
 

IH8LANCE

New Member
Nov 10, 2006
200
0
0
Originally Posted by limerickman
Kimmage was a superb rider - at amateur level.
That was the context in which I referred to Kimmage as being a superb rider, having said that I raced against Kimmage over 25 years ago.
Your comprehension skills need some work.


Sorry, I completely missed that context. I'm sure as compared to you, Kimmage was absolutely superb.

sign0070.gif


I would also suggest that any rider who has the ability to ride at professioanl level in Europe aren't as you put it had an entirely worthless career.
I would agree, except when the rider in question rationalizes his own lack of achievement for his entire career by blaming others for doping, then admits to doping himself to get a book deal afterwards. If you cheat to win and yet can't win, that's a worthless career. But again, I'm sure that riding next to you he looked really stylish.

Try reading Kimmages book.
Can I borrow one of your copies? Preferably one where you haven't colored his photo on the back cover with cute little hearts?

You might learn something instead of continually floundering here.
Chapter 1: How to cheat in professional sport yet not win anything.
Chapter 2: How to rat on your teammates for a book deal.
Chapter 3: How to get your anus licked by the moderator of a small-time cycling message board.

Gee, Lim, thanks, but I'd rather continue to flounder. It's preferable to whatever you're doing.
 

rob of the og

New Member
Nov 20, 2003
253
0
0
guess what? More idiots trying to cloud the issue to distract from the central point, which is that Kimmage is right and Lance is lying. Critiques of the value of Kimmage's career or writing style, or who won the high-school debating society bash in California, are side issues of no importance. He doped; deal with it; the person who happens to be relating that truth to you is independant of that truth.
 

Flyer

Banned
Sep 20, 2004
2,961
0
0
fscyclist said:
What I think is interesting is he seems cynical towards most everything (even things away from cycling) except for this faith he has put in the Garmin team. I think that's dangerous for a few reasons. First, it's a faith that may be easily shattered. He mentions how he put his neck on the line for those guys (as he did for Kohl), yet he gives no specifics as to why he thinks they are clean and the others aren't. Not to mention it is impossible to prove an individual, not to mention an entire team is clean. Second, it shows significant bias. Just because you hang out on a bus with some dudes and ask them quesitons and they seem really 'cool' doesn't make them clean. In other words, he's giving them a free pass and coming down on everyone else without any evidence. I have yet to see anything data driven that shows Garmin is any cleaner than another team. I know you may retort about their 'internal testing' but that is a severe conflict of interest and can be used to promote cheating just as easily as prevent it. Really what it comes down to is that I think he is an 'emotional' journalist. I suppose that is fine as most of the articles I've read from him are opinion pieces, but for a guy who criticizes and calls his colleagues 'complicit' I think he's in the same boat.

What I find most significant in all this is that doping still remains the real story of cycling. The races have clearly taken a back seat to the interest in dopers, their methods, and whether someone is clean or dirty. Almost every interview centers around it, and I think it will continue to be the central story of pro racing for a long time to come.
DDDDF
 

Eldron

New Member
Jan 24, 2002
968
2
0
rob of the og said:
guess what? More idiots trying to cloud the issue to distract from the central point, which is that Kimmage is right and Lance is lying. Critiques of the value of Kimmage's career or writing style, or who won the high-school debating society bash in California, are side issues of no importance. He doped; deal with it; the person who happens to be relating that truth to you is independant of that truth.

Lance probably doped, Paul definitely doped, most of the bunch are probably doping - the problem I have with Paul K is he is a typical journo - wade in with accusations that you can't prove, create hype and sensationalism, collect pay cheque, walk away - repeat 8 weeks later.

We all know Lance probably doped blah blah EPO in urine yadda yadda - the governing body has not found him guilty but every ****** week there's another version of the story - will it ever end? You'd swear it was the holocaust all over again. Lance hasn't been charged and will probably not be charged - just let it die...
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
IH8LANCE said:
[/i]

Sorry, I completely missed that context. I'm sure as compared to you, Kimmage was absolutely superb.

And you continue to miss the context.
Kimmage was a superb rider, at amateur level - which was the context of my original post which you took issue with.

To ride as a professional in Europe, by definition, you need to be a superb rider.



IH8LANCE said:
I would agree, except when the rider in question rationalizes his own lack of achievement for his entire career by blaming others for doping,

You didn't read Kimmages book, did you?
Or if you did read it, why insist on posting the rubbish above.

Kimmages book clears states his career as a very successful amateur rider - winning several prestigious amateur races and racing at the Olympics at Los Angeles in 1984.
Can you show us where in his book, Kimmage blamed his success as an amateur rider on the doping of others?



IH8LANCE said:
........... then admits to doping himself to get a book deal afterwards. I

Incorrect again.
Read Kimmages book.

If you read Kimmages book, you would know that Kimmage was writing for newspapers while riding as a professional.
He states that clearly in his book.

The book deal that PK got was due to the fact that he was already working as journalist.

Nice try though.


IH8LANCE said:
[/i]

If you cheat to win and yet can't win, that's a worthless career.

In your opinion, perhaps.



IH8LANCE said:
[/i]


Can I borrow one of your copies?

I don't have a painting by numbers edition, to loan to you.
 

Bike N Ski

New Member
May 4, 2005
107
0
0
Eldron said:
Lance probably doped, Paul definitely doped, most of the bunch are probably doping - the problem I have with Paul K is he is a typical journo - wade in with accusations that you can't prove, create hype and sensationalism, collect pay cheque, walk away - repeat 8 weeks later.

We all know Lance probably doped blah blah EPO in urine yadda yadda - the governing body has not found him guilty but every ****** week there's another version of the story - will it ever end? You'd swear it was the holocaust all over again. Lance hasn't been charged and will probably not be charged - just let it die...

It's their job to never let it die. You can't blame them though, Lance has caused real psychological damage to them. It's the unhealthy Lance obsession these boys and girls have that's real sad. For the number of dieing people I've been with that wished they had more time to do a few more things in life, these kids **** it away posting the same old stuff year in and year out. They'll babble on endlessly to anyone that will listen much like the proverbial shell-shocked talking old soldiers did. Your right on though, when history looks back Lance will be on the books winning 7 consecutive TDF's without failing a drug test amidst much suspicion due to the prevalence of PED's in todays sports cultures. Unfortunately for them(and to a lesser extent the hardcore Lance fan) - it won't die till they die. Just be glad you got a life. ;)
 

stonemiester

New Member
Nov 29, 2012
1
0
0
bet you feel like a clown now with your paul kimmage comments
Hes been proved right !!

Thats not a good journailst its a great one
Easy in hindsight isnt it

Proper journalist exposing the truth at all costs
 

danfoz

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,432
184
48
Originally Posted by Bike N Ski .

Your right on though, when history looks back Lance will be on the books winning 7 consecutive TDF's without failing a drug test amidst much suspicion due to the prevalence of PED's in todays sports cultures. Unfortunately for them(and to a lesser extent the hardcore Lance fan) - it won't die till they die. Just be glad you got a life. /img/vbsmilies/smilies/wink.gif

The baddest TDF rider he was.

But sorry, but he won't be in any of those books you mention. When we die it will die, except for some obscure mention in a wiki somewhere, just like the poor fella Stalin airbrushed out of that lovely photo on the Moscow Canal. Let's have a toast to our long lost comerade (wait, is he talking about Lance or that ruskie?), and to pissing our lives away babbling on forums everywhere.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
danfoz said:
The baddest TDF rider he was.
By that, you mean the most threatening and the one cyclist most likely to call one his team staff a "*****", right?
But sorry, but he won't be in any of those books you mention.
It's official that now he will forever be recorded in Sports Illustrated as the "Anti-Sportsman of the Year."
 

danfoz

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
2,432
184
48
Originally Posted by alienator .

By that, you mean the most threatening and the one cyclist most likely to call one his team staff a "*****", right?
That part broke whatever fan of LA I had inside me. I was a fan. I held on till the testimony was public. I can accept a cheat. I can't accept a bully.
 

alienator

Well-Known Member
Jun 10, 2004
12,596
310
0
danfoz said:
That part broke whatever fan of LA I had inside me. I was a fan. I held on till the testimony was public. I can accept a cheat. I can't accept a bully.
The number of fans he had likely rivaled those of the greatest cyclists cycling has seen, and as you no doubt know from comments made in articles about the Armstrong kerfuffle in the last few months, he still has a lot of fans, many of whom will never believe that he committed any act that would tarnish his image as a cycling hero and an altruistic champion in the battle against cancer. Hell, there are probably people who still think Eugene McCarthy was a hero and was earnestly chasing commies and was not the pathetic drunk making a desperate grab at regaining power and stature that he really was. If Armstrong owned up to everything that he did, perhaps he wouldn't be viewed as the fraud that he is seen as now. I don't see that happening though, and for my part, he'll be a giant, moldy turd at least until he also apologizes to Betsy Andreu, Emma O'Reilly, Simeoni, and every other person in the orbit of the cycling world that he's **** on. If there were any justice, he'd deliver each apology in person, on his knees, to each individual.