Cycling Forums UK : www.veloriders.co.uk :: View topic - Right about doping in the 1999 Tour Armstrong or Kimmage?

Home FAQ Register Usergroups Search Memberlist Gallery StatisticsForum Sponsors •  Photo RequestProfile • Links Log in to check your private messagesLog inBC Eastmidlands

Right about doping in the 1999 Tour Armstrong or Kimmage?
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cycling Forums UK : www.veloriders.co.uk Forum Index -> Discussion (Road & General Cycling)
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Who do YOU think is right,
Paul Kimmage
80%
 80%  [ 85 ]
Lance Armstrong
19%
 19%  [ 20 ]
Total Votes : 105

Author Message
ninjaslim
E, Bronze


Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 306

PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:04 pm    Post subject: Right about doping in the 1999 Tour Armstrong or Kimmage? Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Billy Boy
T de F Winner


Joined: 11 Aug 2003
Posts: 30726
Location: Not Aylesbury

PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
James56038
E, Bronze


Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 340
Location: Stevenage/London

PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
nedsoldman
E, Silver


Joined: 25 Jul 2007
Posts: 718
Location: bristol

PostPosted: Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

James56038 wrote:
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 drugsI 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?


Quite true James, but you forget that most people on here have raced at the very top level, and know that all their colleagues are as clean as a whistle.
Now if you could just kindly lift the corner of the carpet and sweep any nasty insinuations under it before leaving that would be appreciated. Thank you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ninjaslim
E, Bronze


Joined: 13 Sep 2005
Posts: 306

PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mattr
World Champ


Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Posts: 12647

PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 7:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Billy Boy wrote:
Neither of them are 'right'.


or, alternatively, both of them are.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
gswarbrick
E, Gold


Joined: 14 Jun 2005
Posts: 2478
Location: Why would anyone care?

PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

James56038 wrote:
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.


Why is Kimmage different to anyone else? If everyone was taking drugs because they felt pressured, we're back where we started...
_________________
Guy Swarbrick
Editor
trackcycling
http://www.trackcycling.me.uk

You can also follow me on Twitter - gswarbrick and trackcycling
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
James56038
E, Bronze


Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 340
Location: Stevenage/London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

gswarbrick wrote:
James56038 wrote:
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.


Why is Kimmage different to anyone else? If everyone was taking drugs because they felt pressured, we're back where we started...
Of course he is different because our personalities are all different. We all react differently to different situations. Who is excusing Kimmage for taking *CENSORED*? Not even he does that so it is therefore all the more important to consider what he is actually saying.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
James56038
E, Bronze


Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 340
Location: Stevenage/London

PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nedsoldman wrote:
James56038 wrote:
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 drugsI 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?


Quite true James, but you forget that most people on here have raced at the very top level, and know that all their colleagues are as clean as a whistle.
Now if you could just kindly lift the corner of the carpet and sweep any nasty insinuations under it before leaving that would be appreciated. Thank you.
I don't forget. I didnít know in the first place because no one uses their real name on here..... Cool

Seriously though, the only person I know well who has raced at the top level (inc. racing for GB in his early days some years ago) told me that *CENSORED* taking DOES (or did) happen. I'm unfortunately going to do a Kimmage though and not reveal whose names he mentioned. Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dockeca
Div 2 Pro


Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 4741
Location: halfway up the South Downs - or halfway down the South Ups!

PostPosted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
gswarbrick
E, Gold


Joined: 14 Jun 2005
Posts: 2478
Location: Why would anyone care?

PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

James56038 wrote:
I didnít know in the first place because no one uses their real name on here..... Cool


Not true. Although, to be fair, I barely raced at the lowest level...
_________________
Guy Swarbrick
Editor
trackcycling
http://www.trackcycling.me.uk

You can also follow me on Twitter - gswarbrick and trackcycling
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
martin318is
Cat 2 Groupie
Cat 2 Groupie


Joined: 29 May 2008
Posts: 29

PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dockeca wrote:
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. .


But its easy - remove the legal component by putting out a legal document stating that no action will be taken based on the results of the tests. Then test them and publish the results.

oh wait....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Turismo
E, Silver


Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Posts: 1511
Location: Ealing

PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 10:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Des
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 19 Apr 2002
Posts: 16900
Location: Harrow

PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Turismo wrote:
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.


As the samples are no longer anonymous - then this is a possibility.
_________________
www.kentonrc.co.uk
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Joursans
Div 2 Pro


Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 4840
Location: The Whole Year Inn

PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

James56038 wrote:
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 ?


I'd be quite happy to accept evidence from Kimmage that proved his accusations on the balance of probabilities. Kimmage has fallen well short of meeting this test - much of what he says is not "evidence" at all.

L'Equipe has done the best job of producing evidence against Armstrong but I would need to see a lot more of the background (and would not see Howard P as an impartial source) before accepting the case has been proven against LA, even on a balance of probabilities test.

I just find it amusing that some are convinced he is guilty whereas others (usually Americans) will proclaim his innocence without full knowledge of the facts.
_________________
I tell myself I will not go,
even as I drive there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dockeca
Div 2 Pro


Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 4741
Location: halfway up the South Downs - or halfway down the South Ups!

PostPosted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
clouchi
E, Silver


Joined: 08 Aug 2006
Posts: 901
Location: The Glorious South West

PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony Bell
T de F Winner


Joined: 06 Aug 2003
Posts: 25203

PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kimmage is a Evil or Very Mad 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 Twisted Evil of the First Order.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Joursans
Div 2 Pro


Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Posts: 4840
Location: The Whole Year Inn

PostPosted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony Bell wrote:
Kimmage is a Evil or Very Mad 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.


For God's sake man - for once in your life get off the fence and say what you really mean. Wink
_________________
I tell myself I will not go,
even as I drive there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
James56038
E, Bronze


Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 340
Location: Stevenage/London

PostPosted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Joursans wrote:
James56038 wrote:
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 ?


I'd be quite happy to accept evidence from Kimmage that proved his accusations on the balance of probabilities. Kimmage has fallen well short of meeting this test - much of what he says is not "evidence" at all.

L'Equipe has done the best job of producing evidence against Armstrong but I would need to see a lot more of the background (and would not see Howard P as an impartial source) before accepting the case has been proven against LA, even on a balance of probabilities test.

I just find it amusing that some are convinced he is guilty whereas others (usually Americans) will proclaim his innocence without full knowledge of the facts.
I don't see the point of Kimmage submitting evidence anymore as he has been proved right in implying that there was/is a significant problem with performance enhancing dr*gs in cycling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cycling Forums UK : www.veloriders.co.uk Forum Index -> Discussion (Road & General Cycling) All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Important Notice: VeloRiders copyrights all images appearing on this website and in the Gallery. Images are displayed for viewing only, and commercial or personal use of any of these images without the written permission of VeloRiders is prohibited under international copyright law. Copyright 2002/2013 VeloRiders. All rights reserved.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

E-mail VeloRiders. Comments, questions or send your photos to , Order your photos@

RSS News Feed
aegishosting