There are no words to describe how upset I got when I heard what Paul Kimmage, a reporter for the Sunday Times, said about Lance Armstrong: "The cancer has been in remission for 4 years, but our cancer has now returned", meaning Lance Armstrong is the cancer and that he is out of remission.
This video is part of a pre-Tour Of California press conference that was held in Sacramento, California, yesterday, February 12. In this video you can witness how Paul Kimmage continues the attack against Lance Armstrong.
This is outrageous, folks. It is amazing that a "reporter" for the Sunday Times shows to the world that he has no education, no manners and shows total disrespect towards Lance Armstrong and millions and millions of cancer patients around the world who are currently battling this terrible disease with great courage.
This is outrageous! I am appalled, completely appalled!
If I were the owner of the Sunday Times I would fire Paul Kimmage in a New York minute. I would not, I repeat, I would not like to be associated in any way to his name, his words nor his "work", -if you can call what he does work, at least he is not making it any honorable.
Paul Kimmage needs to be at least severely reprimanded, and he also needs to be sent back to school, if he ever went to one -it certainly doesn't look like it.
I am very proud of how Lance Armstrong responded to him: "You are not worth the chair that you are sitting on with a statement like that, with a disease that touches everybody around the world"
Shame on Paul Kimmage, shame on him forever! I only hope that he can come to his senses one day and becomes a real man -if he is one- by apologizing to millions of patients who suffer cancer right now.
Lance Armstrong acted like a real gentleman answering his questions and talking to him. I would have not been that kind.
My guess: Paul Kimmage is insanely jealous of Lance Armstrong.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=335615e8-3663-4897-8fa5-c784a882049d)
Sphere: Related Content
87 COMMENTS:
Never heard of that Paul Whatever. It sounds to me that he just wants to call attention using others' people's suffering.
That guy has no clue about what cancer is. I feel pity for him.
Way to go Armstrong. I hope Kimmage gets suspended for his remarks.
This whole thread represents the problem with Lance. Kimmage was the first rider to break the code of silence in pro cycling regarding doping, well before Mr. Armstrong had a career. Lance has been critical of all those who spoke out during his career. He even chased down such a rider in the Tour de France so that he would not win a stage. As Kimmage stated, Lance does not have the patent on cancer. He is not above criticism.
I will never read any book written by Paul Kimmage. His statement about Armstrong being a cancer coming out of remission, proved that he is a writer with zero class and more importantly sensitivity to the millions of people around the world that battle cancer every day.
I agree with Lance that "You [Kimmage] are not worth the chair the chair that you are sitting in..."
So did Kimmage write a book? All he's doing is promoting it then. How pathetic that is. Using the topic of cancer to try to sell copies of his book?
Yes, really pathetic.
Spin's comment reflects several wrong connotations.
I just want to clarify three important things that were missed in his comment.
1. Lance Armstrong HAD a career way before Kimmage started pedaling a bike. Lance Armstrong was a teenager when he already was winning triathlons.
2. Lance Armstrong chased down hundreds of riders in the Tour De France because THAT is what a winner is supposed to DO: chase down and win! When a road cyclist has stamina he doesn't want anyone to win the race. The Tour De France is a competition, for goodness sake!
3. Kimmage did not state anything! The way he talked to Lance is not 'stating', it's attacking and being aggressive. And it is being extremely disrespectful to, not only Lance but to millions of cancer patients!
Dr. Preston, MD:
With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about.
1. Paul Kimmage was a PRO cyclist racing in the Tour well before Lance. He was definitely "pedaling a bike" before Lance. Simple fact checking.
2. Lance chasing down Simeoni served no purpose strategically. Lance didn't make dumb useless moves in the Tour - this move was sending a message and it had nothing to do with the race.
3. Kimmage is one of the few journalists who want to ask tough questions. But, of course, Lance wraps himself in cancer and refuses to talk.
Thanks you for the assist anon. Kimmage turned pro in 1985 if I remember correctly. That means he was riding as an amatuer in the early 1980's. He wrote his book in 1990. If you did read it you would see that he feels for the average pro rider just trying to keep up with the ever changing drug culture that cycling requires. Of course Lance has done some good things with his money and time, but the fact that he has been tied to drugs goes back to the early part of his pro career when even he needed drugs to be competitive. Look at his results in 1994 closely. That's right, his cancer may have been related to his drug use. Look at his face ad physique in 1996 compared with 1994. Very Roger Clemens/Jason Giambi in the face. Not proof, but if you look at the big picture, there are a ton of questions.
I admire Lance Armstrong for his work in promoting cancer awareness, research and his contributions towards finding a cure. I hope from the bottom of my heart that Kimmage, Spin and Anon never have to see a loved one suffer through the effects of and eventually dying of cancer.
Go Lance, show them who's D' BOSS!
What Spin said "That's right, his cancer may have been related to his drug use", is a total uneducated concept based on lack of medical knowledge.
Mr. Lance Armstrong was never accused of using testosterone, which is the drug that when used irresponsibly for doping can cause testicular or prostate cancer. Mr. Armstrong was accused of using EPO - a drug that stimulates the production of red blood cells increasing the oxygen that erythrocytes carry, causes thickness of the blood and can cause a heart attack. But it has NOT cause testicular cancer.
It is sad to see that to criticize a great athlete like Lance Armstrong some people have to use uneducated guesses and show disrespect for the sport of cycling and the patients who struggle with cancer.
Correction.
I said above: "But it has NOT cause testicular cancer."
I made a typo, sorry. It should read: But it DOES not cause testicular cancer.
Well said, Dr. Eva M., well said!
I cannot believe what I'm reading. Spin said: "Not proof, but if you look at the big picture, there are a ton of questions" ....and I say...what? no proof, no proof, so why the accusing, why accusing Lance Armstrong when there is no proof?!
Oh, please. That statement speaks for itself.
Anonymous,
With all due respect, you are wrong.
1. Paul Kimmage might have been a pro-cyclist in 1984, but a very unsuccessful one that's for sure. He participated in only 3 Tour de France but he only finished one, and he finished it in 131st place!
(no wonder his jealous of Lance Armstrong)
2. Chasing down Simeoni, chasing down any other rider while in competition is always a good strategy. Chasing down to win, my friend, is always a good strategy.
3. Kimmage is not a journalist who wants to ask tough questions. He simply doesn't know how to do it in an elegant and polite way. He is a journalist who wants to gain popularity for his book by to insulting people and asking rude questions.
He just doesn't have class.
I couldn't have explained it better than you, Dr. Preston.
Just one question to Anon and Spin.
How is it that you can support a "journalist" that doesn't know how to ask decent questions?
Kimmage asked Armstrong: "What is it that you like dopers so much?"
What kind of responsible journalist would phrase a question in that manner?
I admire an athlete who has the ability to inspire me to be a better athlete, overcome huge obstacles, and give my best and all in life. Lance Armstrong does that for me. If he has the ability to return to pro cycling and be competitive without doping then I am 100% in support of him. I admire is contribution to cancer awareness and research. I have had relatives die from cancer and if anyone can bring awareness, explain the need for early detection, and provide money for research, kudos to him.
I've lost several family members to cancer and I do carry a gene for cancer.
Paul Kimmage is the cancer, not Lance Armstrong.
Paul Kimmage...just a sleazy reporter.
Pathetic.
LOL, did this guy...what's his name...paul something....finished only one time the tour de france, and in 131st place?
"Jealousy is no more than feeling alone against smiling enemies." ~Elizabeth Bowen
Dr. Preston,
You said that Lance "had a career way before Kimmage started pedaling a bike." That is clearly wrong. Kimmage was 6th in the amateur worlds in 1984 - 8 years BEFORE Lance turned pro. This is indisputable. You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
If know anything about bike racing (and it appears that you don't) you should know that wasteful attacks are the mark a of foolish rider. Armstrong had a well-publicized dispute with Simeoni and everyone knew why he did it. Google it and read the old VeloNews ot CyclingNews coverage.
Finally, Kimmage has a point. Lance always criticizes the clean riders (Bassons, etc.) and always seems to defend the dirty ones (Ullrich, Basso, etc.)
Dr. Maillot,
Lance WAS accused of using testosterone. Betsy Andreu (a former friend) claims he admitted using it in the hospital in Indiana as he got treatment for cancer.
You folks need to get your facts in order BEFORE you spout off nonsense. And, it's particularly surprising that doctors are doing this.
Anonymous,
First of all, it is incredibly ridiculous that you are commenting in this blog as "Anonymous". It is a very cowardly attitude to hide that way and tells us that your comments are coming from a 'ghost' behind the screen with no profile and no virtual personality.
Second of all, you make statements but do not back them up with the appropriate link to them. Like this one: "Lance WAS accused of using testosterone. Betsy Andreu (a former friend) claims he admitted using it in the hospital in Indiana as he got treatment for cancer."
Where is the link to that? You are the one who comes here and spouts off nonsense and expect us to believe what your "former friend" claims?
So is that what all comes to? Hearsay?
How do you expect us to believe anything you say when you don't have the decency to comment as other than "Anonymous"?
Dear doctors, do not take the comments of someone who posts as Anonymous seriously. Those kind of commentators are usually trolls and clueless.
I congratulate all of you who support Mr. Armstrong and his cause to fight cancer.
This is a great blog with great posts and excellent information with wonderful value to thousands of people.
hahaha, OK, so I'm going to say the following and I expect you all to believe me: My dear friend Jane Doe Smith told me yesterday that she heard Paul Kimmage admitting to several other journalists that he's a kleptomaniac. And this is a FACT! OK? Gee!
Here's a source for the Andreu comments. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5508863
There are plenty others. In fact, I'd be happy to send you an MP3 file with a phone conversation between an Oakley employee who admits to hearing the same confession.
By the way, this accusation is widely known in the cycling community. Betsy's husband, Frankie, rode with Lance on USPS. They were close friends for years.
As for the accusation of being a coward, that's a silly straw man argument since the facts aren't on your side. I notice how you don't refute anything I said.
Finally, I'm hardly a troll. I'm simply correcting a few misguided comments.
By the way, to be clear, Betsy Andreu is not my former friend. She is a former friend of Lance's
And, I HAVE had relatives die of cancer. I believe Lance has done much good for the cancer community. But, it doesn't make him immune to criticism.
Paul Kimmage knows first hand that the pro cycling world contains dopers....not all riders dope, just a few. The question he asked Lance was a good one. Why does Lance so easily welcome back into the peleton riders who have been caught doping? The history of behaviour of dopers is to deny, deny, deny....like Richard Virenque did for years. Floyd and Ivan still deny! Why? This was the essence of the question Kimmage asked Lance. Lance has had blood samples tested in the past which were found to contain EPO but they were old frozen samples which apparently do not count. The possibility that Lance has been on some kinda juice for many years is real. There are those who claim he used testosterone patches on his testicles which is how he got cancer in the first place. He seems to have developed a growing sense of self-righteousness which now is obviously starting to exceed his arrogance. He should have simply answered Paul Kimmage's question and that's all. Instead, he verbally assaults a former rider who knows first hand about the presence of dopers in the peloton, and plays God! Lance's arrogance is spreading, like cancer.
Yeah, I agree. Lance is getting too full of himself. He thinks it's cool if he judges people anyway he wants but when someone criticizes him he can't take it!
Why does Lance so easily welcome dopers back into the peloton anyway? What is about them he likes?
Oh my oh my! These Anonymous trolls are unbelievable.
It is so easy to judge someone so courageous and brave as Lance Armstrong is, behind the curtain of anonymity, huh?
Lance Armstrong has never been proven guilty of any wrong doing, and that is exactly what makes people who are jealous of him so mad.
Lance is a great human being and one of the best cyclists ever existed on earth.
Dr. Preston, I erased your comment and posted again with the corrections you sent to me, but I was logged in and showed up as my own, so I had to remove it again.
Sorry for my mistake. I just sent it to you so you can do it yourself.
The tremendous problem I find with all Anonymous comments and posters is that there is no easy and logical way to address them in particular and it is very confusing.
Anyways, to the first Anonymous who was addressing me and trying to enlighten me by correcting some of my "misguided comments", I want to say something:
Thank you for your reference link to your story and for recognizing that Lance has done many positive things for cancer. I'm sorry to hear that you had lost relatives to cancer and hope you are doing well.
However, just two points of GREAT interest to clarify:
1. The link you gave us. The blog states: "It’s a game of he-said, she-said judging by the CBC story. Put that way, it comes down to who you’re more likely to believe."
See? It is a case of hearsay, my friend. And that is not good enough to accuse someone of doping and try to destroy Lance's career and life with just hearsay's. He's just never been proven guilty. Leave him alone.
2. You are absolutely right. Lance Armstrong is not above criticism, in fact nobody is, and Paul Kimmage is certainly not above criticism either!
Lance Armstrong HAS the right to defend himself, especially from someone who despises him so much like Kimmage.
One more thing. Thank you for discussing this topic in a very passionate but decent and calm way.
Thanks, Livinstrong. I got it right now. Next time I'm going to preview my comment before posting it. Thank you for taking care of my request so promptly.
Why do some people overlook the arrogant side of Lance just because he's a cancer survivor and cancer fundraising champion? His career in cycling certainly is unparalleled and his success in raising money for cancer is amazing. Why though, does he chose to antagonize so many people with his rhetoric and vitriol? A little dose of humility would do him better than another dose of some illegal performance enhancing drug!
Why the anxiety over anonymous posts? You don't know these people anyway and the ones who "identify" themselves could be someone other than who they say they are.
Look for the substance in the message and don't shoot the messenger just because he doesn't have a "handle".
If he -Lance- is so egotistical so what? He has proven to be one excellent cyclist and one courageous cancer survivor. What is it that makes some people so jealous of him and hate him so much?
The remark by Kimmage "the cancer (being Armstrong) has returned after four years in remission" was inconsiderate, hurtful and shameful.
Boycott his book.
The case against Lance is not made exclusively from Betsy Andreu's comments. His former teammate Stephen Swart says he used EPO. A former soigneur Emma O'Relly says he took drugs. Blood tests from his 1999 samples show traces of EPO. He kept his relatioship with the notorius Dr. Ferrari secret until a journalist revealed it. If you read ALL the info out there it makes a persuasive case that he doped. It's not irrefutable, but I'm believe it to be true.
People are complex and full of contradictions. I have no problem with seeing Lance has a hero to the cancer community and a former doper on the bike (like MANY from his "generation")
Oh, and I forgot the Actovegin scandal...
Oh brother! There is no proof so far that Lance Armstrong HAS EVER doped. No proof at all. So that's it. Leave him alone and get a life, people. We could go on and on about all these ridiculous claims about testosterone patches on the testicles, the Actovegin scandal, etc. It's only dirty speculation, it's immoral and dishonest.
In my personal opinion Paul Kimmage is a frustrated and angry guy as he was a pretty mediocre pro-cyclist and he was always getting dropped. So hes out to get the better and more successful riders.
He is so pathetic and he is an enemy to the beautiful sport of cycling.
Paul Kimmage is a very bitter and twisted man and to make the statement he did about LA is quite possibly one the worst cases of journalism I have ever read.
The way to catch people who use performance enhancing drugs is through the measures being implemented not with petty publicity enhancing scwables(sic) substance and proof lacking books.
Lance is a cancer? The cancer has returned? These words cannot be supported nor defended. They are the words of a simple-minded fool.
Medix Thoughts -
Do you have any idea what the Actovegin scandal is?
Anon has been using clear logic in his reasoning to discuss Lance Armstrong and his career. This is not a black and white issue. Again, Lance does not have the patent on cancer, and I wish that friends of mine were not taken by this disease, but that is a separate issue. Here is the most clear example Lance's probable drug use, from 1996:
"In her deposition, Betsy Andreu testified:
I said, I think we should leave to give you your privacy. I said that to Lance. And Lance said, that's OK. You can stay. And I turned to Frankie and I said, I think we should leave. And Frankie said, no, Lance said it's OK. We can stay. And so the doctor asked him a few questions, not many, and then one of the questions he asked was... have you ever used any performance-enhancing drugs? And Lance said yes. And the doctor asked, what were they? And Lance said, growth hormone, cortisone, EPO, steroids and testosterone."
Just Google Betsy Andreu to see this in its entirety. Mrs. Andreu has no ax to grind and did not profit of of them, they were made in private and leaked, but NOT by the Andrueu's.
Regarding Lance chasing down Simeoni on stage 18 in the 2004 Tour, this was not simply "good tactics" in fact Lance already had the race won and was trying to deny a man some leftovers simply because he was outspoken about the prevalence of drugs in the peloton. In no other circumstance would Lance have chased down such a rider, it was spite. All of this is clear to those that follow the sport. If nothing else comes out of this, please follow the sport more closely.
Some people can only justify their own existence by trying to destroy those who have succeeded where they themselves have failed. What has Kimmage done for anyone but pursue his own aggrandizement. LA has accomplished so much for so many at this point in his career. Doping is a desperate act performed by desperate athletes desperate to succeed, Lance is not now nor has he ever been a desperate man, on the other hand Kimmage was and is desperate for attention, for himself.
Well said, flickwet. Kudos to you.
It's very suspicious to me that Paul Kimmage happens to be in the Tour of California, kind of stalking Lance, don't you think so? He's so obsessed with Lance Armstrong...I wonder if he was the one who stole his bike...mmm...I think so, there's enough proof.
In a more serious note. I think that Lance Armstrong should really watch out for his safety. Paul Kimmage is a wacko and crazy people do crazy things. Just sayin'.
Kimmage has made a name for himself by bad-mouthing cyclists and constantly rising the specter of drug use by these athletes. This is the same routine as the french press uses as well. Fan the fires of doubt and increase readership and fame. Papers sell on controversy. Meanwhile, cyclists HAVE to play hardball to keep their name from being smeared. Every one who has made such drug use claims always makes money and/or fame from those claims. The facts are that if Armstrong had failed a drug test, he would be kicked-out. But he has not failed a test and he is tested many times.
This whole thing has much in common with big-foot stories or UFOs. There are those that believe even though there is no real proof of either. Yet that doesn't stop people like Kimmage from speaking as though every one knows better. Well, I don't believe in big-foot, UFOs, or Lance Armstrong's drug use during his past cycling career. I'll gladly change my view if proof arises, but until that time, I'm not going to assume these things exist just because the Kimmages of the world keep saying they do.
Of course, Armstrong is to cycling like Tiger Woods is to golf. Both are quality competitors and they bring in the fans. Organizers and sponsors love them for this reason. The result is, of course, is fatigue for those who follow the sport, but that is the fault of the press. LA and Tiger have NO control on that issue.
In summary, Kimmage is chicken little, rising his own image while simply repeating the same baseless claims while LA continues to bring great exposure to cycling to the average fan. Kimmage, do us all a favor and either do some investigative journalism to prove your claims or shut up.
Excellent comment, Anonymous.
Forever said: "In a more serious note. I think that Lance Armstrong should really watch out for his safety. Paul Kimmage is a wacko and crazy people do crazy things. Just sayin'."
I agree. I was thinking the same thing. I hope the bodyguards don't let Kimmage anywhere near Lance.
Kimmage's description of Armstrong was unfortunate but he was the first to expose the culture of doping that existed in European pro/ amateur cycling. It was his testimony that forced the UCI to begin to take doping seriously. Whatever about Armstrong, Kimmage's honesty has without doubt saved the lives of countless young amateurs and pros. I grew up with guys who had to pull out of the european scene because they refused to dope and then could not compete.
Kimmage has earned the right to ask hard questions of anyone he likes. Armstrong should answer them rather than hoist the cancer banner.
Wrong, you are absolutely wrong, Dr.T.Barry MD.
Nobody, NOBODY has the right to ask questions -especially a journalist- in a way that shows:
1. Disrespect for human beings and cancer patients.
2. Lack of manners and education
3. Anger
4. Low class
5. Bitterness and frustration
6. Lack of professionalism and respect for journalism.
If you are really an MD you should be ashamed of yourself for standing up for Kimmage, who doesn't have a grain of respect for cancer patients.
Wow what debate. Before people have a go at me about the following I respect Lance for coming back from Cancer and the good work he does, but the following comes from thoughts refined by many arguments over the years, especially since LA announced his comeback.
Ok, Kimmage is by far one of the best mainstream sports interviewers in the UK, yes he has an abrasive style, but then so do new yorkers, plus it works. It does on occasions appear he has an agenda but he must firmly believe Lance took drugs. For one of his best interviews read:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/cycling/article2010066.ece
or
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/cycling/article4232249.ece
especially the 2nd article is "probably" an admission of drugs use.
As for Lance and drugs. 1996, Riis EPO, Ulrich, drugs, Basso drugs, Pantani (1997) drugs, pretty much all of US postal. Ullrich, Basso and Pantani were his biggest rivals, none could touch him - yet they were all on drugs. I want to believe that he is drug free... BUT... all the doped up riders couldn't touch him - what does this say about Lance. I know I will now be accused of hearsay and false accusations, but answer this. Name any other sport where a competitor was that far ahead of his rivals for so long. The closest I can think of is Michael Johnson (and there is a biomechanical answer to the question). So was Lance on drugs? I truely hope not.
The only way for Lance to prove he wasn't on drugs is to win the tour this year, but win it well.
Do you really think that Super Lance was better than all of the other drug cheats but never touch the stuff?
Do you really believe that a person's physical performance and form can change so substantially with out a little help?
The lack of critical thinking, powers of dedication, and basic fact checking from Doctors, a group I had previously assumed to be very clever, is alarming!
Did everyone who commented actually read the transcript of what Paul said?
If Lance is really so innocent, why would he not insist on all his old test samples being retested with the benefit of modern testing techniques? That's what I'd do if I was innocent.
Where there is smoke......
Anon, you are not critizicing Lance Armstrong based on FACTS! The FACTS are that he was never caught doping. The facts are that LA was never proven guilty of doing any drug, not even doping!
The lack of critical thinking, powers of dedication, and basic fact checking from Anonymous commentators, a group I had previously assumed to be very clever, is alarming!!!!!
What Paul have said is pure garbish! His words don't prove anything. Don't you get it, Anonymous? Bring me proof from reputable laboratories that show that Lance Armstrong tested positive for drugs and proof that he was convicted of a crime and then I will believe that LA doped!
If you cannot gather all this info then everything you and Paul Kimmage say is pure speculation based on envy and jealousy.
Wow, I love this comment that I friend of mine posted somewhere else. With his permission here it is:
"Save your money Rough Ride is a worthless read, written by a disgruntled cyclist who was in over his head and should never have become a professional cyclist.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend Mr Kimmage, cancer took my mother and aunts by attacking Armstrong you side with cancer."
As "anon" says all these doctors and no rational thinking.
1) Answer this questions based on the following assumptions:
Sastre was clean in 2008
Pantani and Sastre are pure climber. Lance is an awesome all around cyclist. HE IS NOT A PURE CLIMBER.
If you accept this. Sastre was over 5% slower up Alpe D'huez in 2008 than Lance's quickest time. Lance's time is 1 second slower than Pantani (who incidentently was caught for drugs, EPO I think).
Is an athlete 5% better than all his comtempory's. this is the equivalent to Bolt been 1/2 a second faster than the rest over 100m.
Now I hope Lance never took drugs but in pure physical terms his performances in his tours were only matched by admitted drug takers / rider who failed tests.
This is why people, like me, will always be suspicious. Coupled with French labs having tested LA's 1999 samples and found them to contain traces of EPO. This is a FACT. However, as the EPO test only became valid in 2000 (FACT) then these were retrospective tests which LA managed to have thrown out (rightly as they didn't ask his permission). However, he still will not let his old samples be tested. Surely if he did with all the new tests he could prove his innocence. As Anon says there is no smoke without fire.
3) LA can't use Catlin to test him - Garmin seem to manage it.
You will see I have made no comment about cancer, what Paul Kimmage said was possibly ill advised, however, in the context it is used it is not as offensive. If he had said evil would that have been better?
On various comments about Kimmage's book: it won the William Hill sports book of the year. (http://www.williamhillmedia.com/sportsbook_history.asp#1990). It is well written and as you can see from previous winners, chosen by top journalists (FACT) it is obviously a high quality book and not the rubbish you all assume (yes I have read it).
So I ask you, do you all believe 100% LA is a superman and better than all the drug taking rest?
BUT: LA is a hero for everything he has done for Cancer, but that is not relevant in questioning whether he took drugs or not!
I thank you all of you for you participation in this interesting topic. However, this blog does not welcome name calling nor insults. Please keep it civil or your messages are going to be removed.
We all can disagree but we can still have a civil debate. We all don't have to like nor dislike Paul Kimmage nor Lance Armstrong. But we can all agree to disagree.
I don't take it kindly when I read comments like the one Dave just left: "As "anon" says all these doctors and no rational thinking."
You cannot come to my blog to insult the doctors nor anybody else who posts here. So far we have created a very kind and respectful virtual community and I intend to keep it that way.
So, keep your comments and the debate in a civil way, please.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dr. Martha Castro, MD
-Livingstrong
I apologise if my comments about doctors was taken as insulting. It was not intentional. I was meant as a link to the comments about ride times and therefore physiology and I was hoping that one of the doctors could comment on the human body and whether one man been 5% better than anyone else is a realistic idea?
Dr.Preston- I am afraid I must disagree. Kimmage has every right to ask a question (just as every citizen does) even if he not only shows himself but is of poor education, angry or of low class. Do you forbid your patients from asking you questions of your treatments if they show themselves in their questions to be poor, uneducated or of low social standing?
I accept that I cannot persuade you of Kimmage's integrity, calibre and bravery. If you know anything of bike racing, and you and many others evidently know little of this sport beyond Armstrong, you would be aware of his "blowing the lid" on a culture of doping that killed many from Tommy Simpson to Marco Pantani. Since January 03- eight cyclists have died, mostly of heart attacks and most probably related to EPO use. In the Tour of Quatar in January of this year, a young Belgian died in his sleep, again, another heart attack.
You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like but certain aspects of our sport remain rotten, and we need journalists asking tough questions.
Again I repeat, I do not defend Kimmage's description of Armstrong as a cancer- that was despicable but I do defend his any any other journalists right to ask tough questions of dominant figures in our sport. I believe the constitution also enshrines such freedoms.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/feb/16/cycling.cycling1
Dr.T.Barry said:
"Since January 03- eight cyclists have died, mostly of heart attacks and most probably related to EPO use. In the Tour of Quatar in January of this year, a young Belgian died in his sleep, again, another heart attack."
My comment to you:
It is well known that drug abuse is rife in cycling and other sports but to jump to conclusions regarding the tragic death of a young athlete is both wrong and in very bad taste.
This poor man may have been suffering from HOCM (Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy) which has taken many young athletes in the recent past or indeed any number of conditions that could result in sudden death. Indeed 2 young Irish elite athletes - one an all star Gaelic footballer and the other a future rugby international died from HOCM in the last 2 years. This has resulted in screening programs which have highlighted a number of athletes who had been competing with potentially fatal asymptomatic cardiac abnormalities.
Let the coroner decide the cause of death and preach to your hearts content when/if you have THE FACTS.
Sorry, I deleted my comment because I didn't mention the name of Dr.T.Barry, the one I was addressing my comment to.
Since Dr. Preston has not replied to Dr.T.Barry I just decided to jump in.
Dr.T.Barry,
I have no idea what kind of a doctor you are. But taking in consideration the way you put things together in regards to doctor-patient questioning, I have come to the conclusion that you are not a clinician practitioner. Definitely you are not a medical doctor. An MD would never make a statement completely out of context like the one you made.
I don't mean to be rude but this kind of comment shows a total lack of logic and proper information. It is so out of context and reasoning that it is almost laughable.
A doctor-patient relationship is one thing. A journalist and the interviewed person relation is another very different thing. Oh my goodness, I cannot believe I'm wasting my time on this, oh well.
Lance Armstrong is not a medical doctor and Paul Kimmage is not a patient...at least not to Lance, that's for sure. hahahaha....oh, this is crazy. But I had a good laugh anyways.
Have a good night. Tomorrow the AToC promises to be very exciting!
An interesting debate. My conclusions are thus; Kimmage remains a hero, even if his choice of words is poor. His questions remain necessary as does his vigilince. The plethora of cycling MD's appear not to have any in depth knowledge of the sport or its tribulations.It is fair for you to debate those who accuse Armstrong, but to so vociferously attack those who question him, is censorship, if not totalitarianism. My loyalty lies to the promising amatuers and neo-pros of today, who are best served by Kimmage's brutal honesty rather than Armstrong's failure to distance himself from Basso, an unrepentent doper.
When the egotistical cyclist starts attacking the messenger and his or her professional qualifications rather than the message, he must concede moral defeat.
This was the original statement by Paul Kimmage that Armstrong was responding to:
------"My reaction...the enthusiasm that I had built up about the sport in the last couple of years has been all but completely wiped out in the last couple of hours.
Let’s turn the clock back to Armstrong’s last apparition in the sport. The Tour de France 2005. He’s standing on the podium. And he makes this big impassioned speech. Which is basically saying ‘The last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics, the skeptics: I’m sorry for you. I’m sorry you can’t dream big. I’m sorry you don’t believe in miracles.’ That was 2005, his last ride in the the Tour de France. And the people flanking him on that podium were Ivan Basso and Jan Ullrich. And a month after that race ended the French newspaper L’Equipe reported that in his first winning Tour de France, in 1999, Armstrong had tested positive for EPO. Six separate samples taken during that race revealed positive tests for EPO.
------
For the rest see:
http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2009/02/paul-kimmages-lance-amrstrong-cancer-comments-in-context.html
Anonymous, you said above:
"And a month after that race ended the French newspaper L’Equipe reported that in his first winning Tour de France, in 1999, Armstrong had tested positive for EPO. Six separate samples taken during that race revealed positive tests for EPO."
I read this before when all happened. But let me ask you something. If you and L'Equipe are so convinced that Lance Armstrong blood tested positive for EPO six times, how come he was never convicted of any wrong doing nor suspended, like Ivan Basso and others did?
I expect your answer. I'm curious now to know your answer.
Egotistical Cyclist, thank you for your support, friend.
Doctor T.Barry,
Indeed, it's an interesting debate and I appreciate how passionate you are about what you believe. However, you will never convince me that Paul Kimmage is a hero, because he is not. What has he done that makes him a hero before your eyes?
Let me help you a little bit. A hero for me is Mr. Chelsey B. Sullenberger III, the pilot of the US Airways jet that crashed off New York and saved 155 lives.
Now, are you going to answer my question?
Thanks.
Why was not Bjarne Riis stripped of his 1996 Tour de France win? He admitted he doped but is still considered the 1996 winner. Jan Ullrich is the rightful winner of that race and Richard Virenque should be awarded runner-up. They owe Ullrich that after falsely accusing him of doping and forcing him to retire. It would also be great for Virenque who had to serve a suspension because of false allegations of planted drugs in the Festina team car.
Let me share with you a long acknowledged secret in the Peloton: EPO and other "so called" performance enhancing drugs DO NOT WORK. They can offer no advantage over the individual who trains hard, eats right and takes his vitamins. There are numerous examples in body building which demonstrate the naturally obtained physique is far superior to that obtained by steroids. There are no short cuts in professional sports.
This is all a witch hunt led by the anti-doping industrial complex to make tons of money for themselves and their com padres.
Lance duz drugz. He is a loser!
Dear All, in answer to the question of why LA was never prosecuted for his failed drugs test:
I believe, that the samples were a random study suite for research. However, as such they were suppose to be annoynmous and therefore despite the identifying codes still been attached (I do partially believe the idea for French lab techs switching labels) they were not valid tests. Secondly as a random selection the B) samples were not available and as at this time there was a time limit on keeping of samples they should / were destroyed. Therefore there was no legal way to actually determine if LA doped or not. However, 6 positive samples is highly suspicious.
I hope this helps to clear this up. I'd also like to mention that Chambers, Marion Jones etc... never failed tests for THG as WADA never knew anything about it. We should as always assume innocent until proven guilty, but just because someone proves clean does not mean they are not taking drugs, especially when all his nearest competitors have sinced failed / admitted drug tests.
As for EPO not working, i'd refer you to David Millar's comments on the subject. On any given day it does not boost significantly your maximum performance, unless you have already been fatigued. I.E for a one day classic, e.g. Amstel Gold, then it won't give you as much benefit, but for a long tour it means the bad days are less likely, the effects less, the last climb after a few days in the mountains easier.
I believe that LA is an amazing athlete, I struggle to see how he still beat ALL the other drugged up athletes while clean. Does this seem fair, i'll be interested to see what you think.
Dave,
Your comment is amazingly interesting and unbiased. I am a great admirer of Lance Armstrong and many other cyclists and athletes in general.
We know that for many of them to accomplish what they do they have to dope one way or another. Some other athletes know how to train to win without the need to dope. The thing here is that some people love to hate LA without having any proof that he in fact doped. What else can I say?
Lance Armstrong won 7 times and never tested positive.
Armstrong has achieved the desired effect of getting most of the people on this blog to speak out against Kimmage by making this a cancer issue. He purports to be brave but in fact it is Kimmage who shows really bravery - he's an excellent journalist and the only one in the sport willing to speak out and ask testing questions. This is not a Cancer issue, this is an issue about a cancer in cycling. Let's not get carried away on the hyperbole.
Paul Kimmage is a coward and a pathetic human being who is insanely jealous of the success and admiration that millions of people have for Lance Armstrong.
Paul KImmage is a total loser. He should go back on the bike. He's too fat.
did any of you watch the full uncensored video with kimmage reply? he was talking about the cancer of doping not cancer itself. Please have a look at wikipedia entries on christophe bassons and frankie andreau or any other search. This will begin to reveal to you what kind of man armstrong is. Armstrong is the real insult to cancer survivors as his story is founded on complete lies. Six of his 1999 Tour de F blood samples positive for EPO. What was that about kimmage having no class? Wake up and learn your facts. An opinion based on such a complete lack of knowledge is a worry.
@pkelly,
You said "An opinion based on such a complete lack of knowledge is a worry."
Allow me to laugh. Who are you to say that when you get your "knowledge" from Wikipedia? Did you know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information?
I would say to you that 'An opinion based on such a complete full of Wiki knowledge...is a real worry.'
hahaha..."have a look a wikipedia"? hahaha...honestly...
Maybe the blood samples were sent to a WikiLab...LOL + LOL
Wikipedia is pkelly's 'proof' that Lance Armstrong is a doper? HAHAHAHA...again...HAHAHAHA..
Come on, let's admit that you all who don't like Lance is 'cause you're insanely jealous of him.
pkelly's comment
did any of you watch the full uncensored video with kimmage reply? he was talking about the cancer of doping not cancer itself. Please have a look at wikipedia entries on christophe bassons and frankie andreau or any other search. This will begin to reveal to you what kind of man armstrong is. Armstrong is the real insult to cancer survivors as his story is founded on complete lies. Six of his 1999 Tour de F blood samples positive for EPO. What was that about kimmage having no class? Wake up and learn your facts. An opinion based on such a complete lack of knowledge is a worry.
Lance Armstrong is the real insult to cancer survivors?
How dare you?!
I am amazed at the blinkered views of so called professional people.
Armstrong protects and encourages the silence about doping in the sport.
It is all spin and PR, turn the whole of the cancer community against anyone who questions his achievements.
It is about being an EGOmaniac, bully and a sociapath.
Just look at his sometime petulant schoolboy rants on twitter!!
Hiding behind cancer is akin to Saddam Hussain hiding behind hostages as a human shield.
Wake up you smucks, it will be too late when he is your president!!!
@Anonymous, comment #85
"Hiding behind cancer is akin to Saddam Hussain hiding behind hostages as a human shield."
And how do you call an 'Anonymous' commenter who hides behind anonymity and doesn't have the courage, honesty nor pants to post a comment with a link to his/her persona? Do you call this 'Anonymous'...brave, or a coward?
Please, anonymous#85, give it up. Live a life, go out, be happy, stop over indulging on food. Otherwise you might end up looking like Paul Kimmage, and we don't want that, do we?
Having lost a close relative to cancer, I can understand the passionate comments this has engendered. However, I'm not offended by Kimmage. Whilst he probably regrets explicitly referring to Armstrong- rather than doping- as the cancer, I think Kimmage is a very good journalist asking the right questions of a man who appears reluctant to condone other dopers, yet regularly professes the need for tranparency.
Associations with dubious characters in the sport, along with accusations from creditable witnesses, do not satisfy the burden of proof required. No-one doubts the talent of Armstrong. However, the suspicion is unlikely to go away.
Post a Comment
Please, do not assume that I, Livingstrong -LSAH management- agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand.