Right about doping in the 1999 Tour Armstrong or Kimmage?

[ninjaslim]

You've read the transcript of the Kimmage interview on Irish radio

He's bitter and twisted about a retired legend?

He's spot on Lance got out of the sport just in time and should stay out?

[Billy Boy]

Neither of them are 'right'.
_________________
"Well done, you are 100% absolutely without a shadow of a doubt spot-bollock-on correct." - Tucker

"Eating is not for wimps" - coal miner

"most of us don't have your brilliance." - John McC

[James56038]

But is Kimmage bitter and twisted? I keep checking his book for evidence of this. Yes, he is bitter that his experience of continental pro cycing was not what he expected but then, in his position, I would be too. But I can't see that he's twisted. Whilst some of you would like him to provide evidence of the type that would prove beyond reasonable doubt that when he was a pro some of his colleagues took performance enhancing drugs, I don't see that how it would have been feasible without great difficulty and pre-planning. The detractors on here don't seem to think he just made it up but you do (it seems) think he should have shut up???? Just like everyone else???? As for criticising him for criticising people taking drugs when he did so himself, well it is obvious from what he wrote in his book to anyone but a fool that he felt pressured to take drugs and regretted it even when he was doing it. Is that a hard situation to understand? I am sure that most of us have at some time in our lives done something that we regretted and then advised others not to do same. Are we wrong to do so?

[nedsoldman]

[ninjaslim]

I find the circumstantial evidence against Armstrong to be pretty condemning

However I'd love to think he was clean, as I would love to think that Basso, etc. etc. etc. was clean. What will convince me?

It's interesting to see that so far this poll is showing that the Pro Armstrong camp are the vocal minority.

[mattr]

[gswarbrick]

[James56038]

[James56038]

[dockeca]

The 1999 thing is mischief making by the French, they know full well that a statute of limitations applies to samples, and that the period - according to WADA - is EIGHT years. Which piuts the samples beyond the eight year period. In my view nothing would be gained by testing the samples, as any result that was non-negative would automatically be out of time anyway, and the storage, procedures, and everything else would end up in court. So whatever is or is not in the samples, the sport is dragged through the mire - AGAIN. Is that REALLY what the French want? I think not, they simply want revenge on an American for winning "their" race so many times, whilst the home riders (whatever the chemical status of anyone) continued to perform dismally.
_________________
Doc

"Any views expressed are entirely my own and not representative of any organisation of which I may or may not be a member. Unless I say otherwise."
"A Libertarian Crackpot" H.Peel

[gswarbrick]

[martin318is]

[Turismo]

Mischief is true, but I enjoyed it. What could Lance do? The only way he come out of it looking good was if he knew he was clean and went ahead with the testing -- a clean sample wasn't just going to magically develop EPO.

Of course he didn't take them up on their offer. It speak volumes about how he won the Tour in 1999.

[Des]

[Joursans]

[dockeca]

Which leaves a status quo. LA has a problem protesting innocence, and a percentage of the public don't believe him. And and "proof" is outside the stature of limitations, so any testing would be pointless, as who can say if: a) the samples have been correctly stored
b) they have not been tampered with in any way.

Both cases depend on someone's word, and there would be a choice to be made, in which case someone would have to be economical with the truth, and thus open up possibilities of all kind of legal actions, which the press would doubtless report in gory (if dull) detail.

Now, whatever anyone's opinion on the issue, is that STILL what would be wanted by the sport?

I don't see any other sport holding on to outdated samples for testing, and by any balance of probabilities, if cheating is going on in one endurance sport (cycling), then the likelihood of it happening elsewhere would appear to be just as high. Marathon times have had periods when they dropped dramatically, for instance, and this does not seem to have attracted a great deal of mischevious comment.

Commonsense required please!
_________________
Doc

"Any views expressed are entirely my own and not representative of any organisation of which I may or may not be a member. Unless I say otherwise."
"A Libertarian Crackpot" H.Peel

[clouchi]

There must be samples from less than 8 years ago of Armstrong's knocking about. All those TDF's he won in the early 2000's for example. So could they legally retest these?

There are also the samples held by the IOC from the Olympics - was he at the 2004 games?

[Tony Bell]

Kimmage is a of the First Order. He was a succesful amateur. He turned pro. He couldn't ride at that level, so he eventually decided to do what - he claims - everyone else was doing, and he used drugs.
And ever since then he has made a living denouncing pro riders who did exactly what he did.
Like I said, a of the First Order.

[Joursans]

[James56038]