# Kimmage on Armstrong's return



## WeakMite (Feb 20, 2005)

*Paul Kimmage on Armstrong's return...*

*Quote from radio interview transcript:*

...from this URL: http://www.podiumcafe.com/2008/9/10/611485/lance-armstrong-comeback-r




"My reaction … I’m reminded of that memorable scene in The Shawshank Redemption, where Andy crawled through a giant pipe of steaming excrement in order to escape to freedom. That’s how I feel right now about Armstrong’s come back. I feel like we’ve been dragged through this pile of steaming excrement. And 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 sceptics: 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.

This return, he wants us to believe that it’s all about saving the world from cancer. That’s complete bullshit. It’s about revenge It’s about ego. It’s about Lance Armstrong. I think he’s trying to rewrite his exit from the sport. He’s sat back and he’s watched the last two years and he cannot stand the idea that there are clean cyclists now that will overtake his legacy and buy the memory of all the crap that he put the sport through.

When I heard it being mooted first that he was coming back, I thought well that’s fine, because the first thing ASO are going to say is ‘sorry Lance, we’ve seen your results from the 1999 tests , you’re not coming back.’ I expected a similar statement from Pat McQuaid. What’s happened instead is that Christian Prudhomme has said ‘yes, you can come back, no problem.’ And Pat McQiad has said ‘I really admire this man, he’s a tremendous ambassador for cycling.’ What we’re getting here is the corporate dollars and the money that’s going to accompany this guy back into the game. The money that’s going to bring for Nike, one of the big sponsors of the Tour. And for the UCI, who have been experiencing some serious problems in the last couple of years.

Much as you want to say the sport has changed, as quickly as they can change their own opinions – McQuaid, who says one thing in private and quite the opposite in public, and Prudhomme – if they can change so quickly then I’m sorry, it’s really very, very difficult to have any optimism with regard to Armstrong and the way the sport was moving forward. For me, if he comes back next year, the sport takes two steps back.

I spent the whole Tour this year with Slipstream, the Garmin team. That wasn’t by accident. I chose that team deliberately, because of what they were saying about the sport and the message they were putting out. But also the fact that so many of that team had raced with Armstrong during his best years and knew exactly what he got up to. And the stuff that I learnt on that Tour about him and what he was really like was absolutely shocking, really shocking.

What’s going to happen now is he comes back and everybody’s going to wave their hands in the air and give him a big clap. And all the guys who really know what he’s about are going to feel so utterly and totally depressed. And I’m talking about Jonathan Vuaghthers, who raced with Armstrong that first winning Tour and who doped. And if you look at that Tour, Armstrong’s first win, there were seven Americans on that team. Frankie Andreu has said he used EPO. Tyler Hamilton has been done for [blood doping]. George Hincapie was exposed as a doper by Emma O’Reilly, the team soigneur. Christian Vand Velde and Jonathan Vaughters … both are members of Slipstream and would promote the notion that this was not a clean team by any means. When you look at that and what Armstrong’s done and how he’s seemingly got away with it, it just makes his come back very hard to stomach.

Astana’s the absolute perfect team for him. He’d be renewing his old acquaintance with Bruyneel, who wanted to hire Basso last year. Will he be renewing his old acquaintance with Ferrari, the famous doctor? Will Bruyneel be taking pictures of the questioning journalists and pinning them on the side of his bus?

When Armstrong talks about transparency, this is the greatest laugh. When he talks about embracing this new transparency … I’m really looking forward to that. I’m really looking forward to my first interview request with him and seeing how that comes back. Because that would really make it interesting.

This guy, any other way but his bullying and intimidation wrapped up in this great cloak, the great cancer martyr … this is what he hides behind all the time. The great man who conquered cancer. Well he is the cancer in this sport. And for two years this sport has been in remission. And now the cancer’s back."


----------



## saird (Aug 19, 2008)

All that ranting simply makes me feel even more positive about lances return.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

As usual, Kimmage hits the nail on the head.


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

Couldn't have said it better myself. +1


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Paul Kimmage is right to be disgusted -- I am too.

He did get it wrong though: <i> "What’s going to happen now is he comes back and everybody’s going to wave their hands in the air and give him a big clap."</i>

I won't. I will be on the side of the road at Paris-Nice. I'll be there also for the Dauphiné. I will be on the road du Tour this summer and I will let Armstrong know what a fraud I believe him to be -- if he even makes it to the TDF. I don't believe I'll be alone, and I dont believe the peleton will be as silent as in years past.


----------



## Barry Muzzin (Sep 18, 2006)

Kimmage articulated my thoughts and feelings much better than I ever could. Chapeau, Paul.


----------



## ti-triodes (Aug 14, 2006)

Wah!!! The evil Lance is coming back!!! WAH!!!


----------



## TheDon (Feb 3, 2006)

Great post. He said what everyone is thinking.


----------



## ToF (Jan 18, 2008)

Who is Paul Kimmage? Should I know?


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

tferris said:


> Who is Paul Kimmage? Should I know?


You probably should.

First pro cyclist to truly 'spit in the soup'. This was pre-Festina. Caused an uproar. And mostly disbelief, back then.

Google is your friend.



saird said:


> All that ranting simply makes me feel even more positive about lances return.


Well, I would think Kimmage has a wee bit more credibility. The guy tends to be a straight shooter. The article may be negative, but perhaps shouldn't be dismissed as a rant.


----------



## ToF (Jan 18, 2008)

dave2pvd said:


> You probably should.
> 
> First pro cyclist to truly 'spit in the soup'. This was pre-Festina. Caused an uproar. And mostly disbelief, back then.
> 
> Google is your friend.


Why use google when I have you, Dave?  

thanks


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

Good point.

Wait a sec.....

Here it is: Kimmage


----------



## lookrider (Dec 3, 2006)

TheDon said:


> Great post. He said what everyone is thinking.



Wow, you again! It didn't stop you from criticizing me for "bashing Lance."

Whatever dude!

Here's a word for you, Bugliosi.......


----------



## Gregory Taylor (Mar 29, 2002)

dave2pvd said:


> Good point.
> 
> Wait a sec.....
> 
> Here it is: Kimmage


"Rough Ride" is an excellent book. Well written. He got the bum's rush from this fellow riders (especially Stephen Roche, fellow Irishman) after it came out.


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

I hope that Lance makes it and gets smashed in the Alps so everyone knows that he needs assistance. Personally I just wish he would just disappear. He is really just a distraction at and a reminder of the bad old days,


----------



## dave2pvd (Oct 15, 2007)

Gregory Taylor said:


> "Rough Ride" is an excellent book. Well written. He got the bum's rush from this fellow riders (especially Stephen Roche, fellow Irishman) after it came out.


I remember the shock and horror.

When your boyhood heroes were Kelly and Roche, what Kimmage revealed didn't exactly sit well. Slightly devastating at the time, now that I recall.


----------



## zero85ZEN (Oct 11, 2002)

Chris Oz said:


> I hope that Lance makes it and gets smashed in the Alps so everyone knows that he needs assistance. Personally I just wish he would just disappear. He is really just a distraction at and a reminder of the bad old days,


Amen, brother!


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

First off I agree with everything PK said there. But during today's death ride I decided the most logical explanation for LA's return is that he thinks the sport is clean enough now that he could win clean. What would be the point of coming back doped? He's already proven he's the best doper around, hardly worth coming back doped against a cleaner peloton - that wouldn't prove anything other than he's an even bigger pr!ck than the critics imagine. Winning again at least relatively clean, sans blood doping et al, would be the challenge that would get him off the starlet banging circuit.

The alternative explanation is that starlet banging is a very expensive hobby and the sponsorship money has dried up to the point he can't afford it any more and needs to be the current flavor of fame to really pull the poon. In that case doping would be mandatory.


----------



## SwiftSolo (Jun 7, 2008)

WeakMite said:


> *Paul Kimmage on Armstrong's return...*
> 
> *Quote from radio interview transcript:*
> 
> ...


Wow, if L’Equipe reported it, it just has to be true. No trial-- no follow up by the authorities--just good old fashioned guilt by the word of French paper sellers. God knows the French would never do anything to make Armstrong look bad if they could avoid it!


----------



## pedalruns (Dec 18, 2002)

terzo rene said:


> First off I agree with everything PK said there. But during today's death ride I decided the most logical explanation for LA's return is that he thinks the sport is clean enough now that he could win clean. What would be the point of coming back doped? He's already proven he's the best doper around, hardly worth coming back doped against a cleaner peloton - that wouldn't prove anything other than he's an even bigger pr!ck than the critics imagine. Winning again at least relatively clean, sans blood doping et al, would be the challenge that would get him off the starlet banging circuit.
> 
> The alternative explanation is that starlet banging is a very expensive hobby and the sponsorship money has dried up to the point he can't afford it any more and needs to be the current flavor of fame to really pull the poon. In that case doping would be mandatory.



I think this too... is ego is too big and his image is 'drug' tainted now, so he wants to re-write his ending as a clean rider. That was a great article by Kimmage, I like that he is not afraid to speak, I wish more ex-riders would speak the truth. 

I will say LA's return will do alot for cycling in the U.S.,(if he indeed rides clean) that will be good and I'll be excited to watch the races, but I won't be pulling for him this time around. 


.


----------



## Chili Fries (Jul 4, 2008)

Judging from Contador's performance today Lance should have no difficulty kickin it old school.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

SwiftSolo said:


> Wow, if L’Equipe reported it, it just has to be true. No trial-- no follow up by the authorities--just good old fashioned guilt by the word of French paper sellers. God knows the French would never do anything to make Armstrong look bad if they could avoid it!


What has L'Equipe got to do with it? It's a radio interview not an editorial in L'Equipe!


----------



## moonstation2000 (Sep 5, 2008)

terzo rene said:


> First off I agree with everything PK said there. But during today's death ride I decided the most logical explanation for LA's return is that he thinks the sport is clean enough now that he could win clean. What would be the point of coming back doped? He's already proven he's the best doper around, hardly worth coming back doped against a cleaner peloton - that wouldn't prove anything other than he's an even bigger pr!ck than the critics imagine. Winning again at least relatively clean, sans blood doping et al, would be the challenge that would get him off the starlet banging circuit.
> 
> The alternative explanation is that starlet banging is a very expensive hobby and the sponsorship money has dried up to the point he can't afford it any more and needs to be the current flavor of fame to really pull the poon. In that case doping would be mandatory.


It's hard to believe that any of the best historical cyclists could come back at age 37 and win an event like the Tour without doping help. Otherwise all the previous champions would have kept racing much longer. He was the oldest to win when he got his last one at age 34. The rest of the field are probably doping less now than they were when he retired, but they are still much younger than him. It makes no sense that he could be completely clean and compete to win at that level. Obviously there is still doping occurring as people are being busted on a regular basis, so if he were completely clean he would still have to compete against some riders who were doping.

That said; he can't get caught doping or he will be royally screwed, and he can't take that chance. It will ruin his legacy to everyone who believes that he rode clean for his 7 wins. 

This is like chewbacca on the ewok planet; it makes no sense. I'd love to know what the hell is going on.


----------



## shades9323 (Apr 30, 2006)

ultimobici said:


> What has L'Equipe got to do with it? It's a radio interview not an editorial in L'Equipe!


Did you miss this part in the original post?


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.


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

shades9323 said:


> Did you miss this part in the original post?
> 
> 
> 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.


Didn't miss it at all. But Kimmage was commenting on the FACTS.

_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 sceptics: 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._

Kimmage doesn't say that LA tested positive at all. It is a matter of record that


The samples from 1999 were stored
L'equipe obtained the analysis of them
That LA gave permission for his id no to be confirmed
L'Equipe journo put 2 and 2 together
L'Equipe published findings


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

and kimmage thinks he won't get an interview? Duh. Lance is an SOB but a he'll of an athlete most definitely stepped on a lot of toes but L'equipe and the french lab can't be fully trusted either


----------



## jhamlin38 (Oct 29, 2005)

Seems like kimmage and Lemond should be best buds. 
My thought is that Lance knows the level of peoples negative opinion of him and has plan to avoid and neutralize such venom. 
I wish I had the time to learn about kimmage, but boy does he have it in for armstrong. That guy must be scary.


----------



## Lance#8in09 (Sep 13, 2008)

SwiftSolo said:


> Wow, if L’Equipe reported it, it just has to be true. No trial-- no follow up by the authorities--just good old fashioned guilt by the word of French paper sellers. God knows the French would never do anything to make Armstrong look bad if they could avoid it!



LOL, could not have said it better myself. A horn blowing article based on zero proven and verified facts, just one little writers biased opinions and the minions eat it up as if its a confirmed fact. I'm gonna enjoy watching mellow johnny come back and win #8 and when he tests clean all the little blowhards will start their spin machines in full motion to explain it away. Very funny indeed. The International Court of L'Equipe and the Malabry Boys. Hohoho.

Hopefully most of these characters will never be asked to serve jury duty in a serious case.


----------



## Lance#8in09 (Sep 13, 2008)

ultimobici said:


> Didn't miss it at all. But Kimmage was commenting on the FACTS.
> 
> _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 sceptics: 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._
> 
> ...


Additional facts:

1) no trial
2) no confirmation of any results by b sample testing
3) the entire reason why the UCI and WADA have specific timelines for positive test results to be reported is so that the accused can defend himself and so that the security of samples can be mantained. 
4) Malabry has never been able to prove the security of the "supposed" samples nor "prove the validity of the 'supposed" test results, never
5) L'Equipe put 2 + 2 together and published findings - yeah so what? Are you claiming that what a French Newspaper reports qualifies as verifiable evidence? Please do not ever sit on any jury in any serious case, justice would most surely not stand much chance of being served.
6) what "official" ruling body or court of arbitration found Armstrong guilty???? Which ones, I forgot who they were????????????


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Lance#8in09 said:


> based on zero proven and verified facts


except that the article was based on <i>proven and verified facts</i> -- despite the findings not counting <i>technically</i> for a "positive" since it wasn't done in the context of a UCI official dope test.

Thinking that there was no proven and verified results of the 1999 re-test is clueless. Thinking that the results of the 1999 re-test can in no way be used for official UCI sanctions or to support a UCI finding of a "positive" (because it was not done in the context of a UCI-sanctioned test) is more exact.


----------



## Edgecrusher (Jan 12, 2006)

saird said:


> All that ranting simply makes me feel even more positive about lances return.



+100
His return is absolutely nothing but positive for cycling here in the states,
and the ancillary benefits for the rest world will be huge.

The people that rail against him seem a bit envious, and apparently angry too.
Instead of logical thinking, his detractors tend to operate on a emotional and
psychological level of thinking. Which is understandable, we all have certain 
emotions tied to certain people and events - but sometimes emotion gets 
in the way of logic. 

His return has already sparked enormous interest in cycling back in the states 
and the 2009 Tour as well. As the TdF draws nearer, it will grow into a media frenzy.
This will bring in huge money around the globe for all sponsors and supporters of cycling.
More television coverage, more print coverage, more web coverage. All positives.
In the bigger picture, Lance's return is just plain old good for the sport - from the
leisure riders to race enthusiasts. :thumbsup:


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

Perhaps the best thing about Wonderboy's return is that along with it comes legions of Yellow Cool-Aid drinking fanboys. The entertainment value of their rants and chamois sniffing decelerations of loyalty are worth the damage to the sport cause by the return of its most unapologetic doper.


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

Edgecrusher said:


> +100
> His return is absolutely nothing but positive for cycling here in the states,
> and the ancillary benefits for the rest world will be huge.


I think you have a warped impression of the importance of the US to cycling. Cycling is pretty big in Europe and there is lots of money around despite the doping problems. Sure his come back may give the Tour and a few minor US races a bit more coverage, but he is still part of the old crowd and whether he is clean or not there will still be a cloud that follows. In truth I think we all really need to move on.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Edgecrusher said:


> Instead of logical thinking,
> :


 Yes because ignoring scientific evidence and a slew of red flags is not "logical"



Edgecrusher said:


> This will bring in huge money around the globe for all sponsors and supporters of cycling.
> More television coverage, more print coverage, more web coverage.:


Yes, because sponsors are drawn to scandal like moths to a flame. Let me remind you that the United States counts for an infintesimal share of the cycling world market - even if it doubles due to the Lance effect, it will remain so. Let me also remind you that in the markets that count, Lance's return is seen as a throwback to a dope-laden era and is largely seen as a bad thing. Just the kind of stuff sponsors love! 



Edgecrusher said:


> All positives.
> :


You really have don't get it, do you?

Oh, wait - by "all positive", you meant the dope tests.


----------



## Edgecrusher (Jan 12, 2006)

Chris Oz said:


> I think you have a warped impression of the importance of the US to cycling. Cycling is pretty big in Europe and there is lots of money around despite the doping problems. Sure his come back may give the Tour and a few minor US races a bit more coverage, but he is still part of the old crowd and whether he is clean or not there will still be a cloud that follows. In truth I think we all really need to move on.


Not warped at all. In terms of money, it will be huge for the entire demographic the Tour 
covers. You may not understand marketing very well, because his comeback is a
huge story and will attract a big number of additional fans in person and watching
the broadcasts. Forget the cloud, minor heresay and envious whispers from 
a small group of self-loathers. It's BIG Johnny...big. As for moving on, yes
let us move on to the next chapter of history in the making. The 2009 TdF!
Can't wait.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Edgecrusher said:


> Not warped at all. In terms of money, it will be huge for the entire demographic the Tour
> covers. You may not understand marketing very well, because his comeback is a
> huge story and will attract a big number of additional fans in person and watching
> the broadcasts. Forget the cloud, minor heresay and envious whispers from
> ...


Here are a couple links you should read before you make any more ignorant posts:

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/122739

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=akRbPRL5w5rc&refer=europe

That's right, roughly 300,000 average viewers in the US for the 2005 tour, roughly the same number of viewers in Denmark for 2007...that really huge country with...wait for it...5 million people.


----------



## 600watts (Oct 18, 2008)

Lance did what he did. If you think the playing field wasn't level in 1999 at the TDF you're kidding yourself. Please find something else to cry about in your life. Because nothing sounds as bad as grown men complaining. Man up shutup and ride.


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

600watts said:


> Lance did what he did. If you think the playing field wasn't level in 1999 at the TDF you're kidding yourself. Please find something else to cry about in your life. Because nothing sounds as bad as grown men complaining. Man up shutup and ride.


Well we know for a fact that in 99, Bassons was clean and was bullied out of the race by Lance...I think someone like Kimmage is entitled to talk about this issue as someone wiht first hand experience of how doped cyclists beat clean cyclists...so do you believe that riders such as Lance should not be accountable for past indiscretions? Imagine the likes of you on a jury...what about justice? And if you pre-suppose that EVERYONE was cheating, which they were not, then it comes down to a race between the doctors...Between Cecchini, Ferrai, Conconi and the like...And I'm glad we have people like Kimmage, Walsh, Ballester and Lemond, because they are the people who are not afraid to tell the truth...do you not think journalism should be about reporting, investigating and asking the questions...or should it be about burying your head in the sand like most of the others who pander to the ego of lance...Shut up and ride...what an ignorant statement...but then again it's the usual kind of holler from the mellow johnny fans, who came on the scene in '99...What would you say if you were VandeVelde at next year's tour and Lance beat him into second? Knowing that VandeVelde is clean...can you imagine him giving an interview with your kind of attitude...'Lance did what he did'!!!!!!
Justice for all.......


----------



## 600watts (Oct 18, 2008)

yep, Lance was the only doper in the tour in 99. you're right......lol. Ride time you should try it.


----------



## 600watts (Oct 18, 2008)

Cry ,cry,cry all you want about Lance. You have no idea who was doping in the '99 tour. To say Lance was the only one is such a line of crap. I said the playing field was level.....oh Pantani wasn't doping, Jahn was clean.....lol;


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

600watts said:


> Cry ,cry,cry all you want about Lance. You have no idea who was doping in the '99 tour. To say Lance was the only one is such a line of crap. I said the playing field was level.....oh Pantani wasn't doping, Jahn was clean.....lol;



So tell me where I said that Lance was the only one doping...just curious!!!
Pantani doped, Jan doped, yip an awful lot doped...but you tell me what basis you have to say that EVERYONE doped?


----------



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

600watts said:


> Cry ,cry,cry all you want about Lance. You have no idea who was doping in the '99 tour. To say Lance was the only one is such a line of crap. I said the playing field was level.....oh Pantani wasn't doping, Jahn was clean.....lol;


By this it seems, you are conceding that Lance doped. If so, it is simply irrelevant who else doped. It is also irrelevant whether there was a level playing field.


----------



## Edgecrusher (Jan 12, 2006)

SilasCL said:


> Here are a couple links you should read before you make any more ignorant posts:
> 
> http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/article/122739
> 
> ...


Anything from bloomberg is garbage - so lI'll dismiss that crap right away.
What once was a credible financial and economic outlet has become
nothing more than a left-winged biased soapbox and town cryers source of bull.

Lance's comeback will no doubt attract more than 300k viewers in 2009,
I would also like to some nielson numbers from 2003, 2004 to compare 2005.
Perhaps after six tour wins in a row the numbers were down, perhaps
it was not as exciting to know he would win - yet again.
We'll have to wait and see what the ratings, and marketing buzz will actual
produce after the '09 TdF. Until then you can shove your posts far and wide...:thumbsup:


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Edgecrusher said:


> Anything from bloomberg is garbage - so lI'll dismiss that crap right away.
> What once was a credible financial and economic outlet has become
> nothing more than a left-winged biased soapbox and town cryers source of bull.
> 
> ...


So you're glad Lance is coming back...not so much from this particular post, but from other posts, it's very clear...now, what's your opinion on the doping accusations against him? Do you believe it's good for the sport to have a doper winning? Do you believe he's clean? I imagine you do believe he is clean...so do you think all the accusations are some sort of anti-American sentiment? Do you attach ANY credence to them whatsoever?
How long have you followed cycling? In another thread, you referred to Paul Kimmage as a 'dill', amongst other things...what articles or books have you read by Paul to support this view? What of the same things have you read, that you believe to be untrue or lies? Do you acknowledge that a doping problem exists iun the sport and has done since the first tour de france? Do you think it's good for a sport to have a man who bullied riders who spoke up against drugs and broke the omerta? Are you happy that Lance will come back into the peleton, when he led other riders to spit at Simeoni during a stage in the Tour de France, due to his outspoken views on drugs? Simeoni rolled to the back of the peleton in tears, with spit rolling down his body, having suffered from a protest led by 'Mellow Johnny'...Are these the actions of a hero? Yip, Edgecrusher you're right, it's a great day for cycling...Go Lance, you the man!!!!!!


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Edgecrusher said:


> Anything from bloomberg is garbage - so lI'll dismiss that crap right away.
> What once was a credible financial and economic outlet has become
> nothing more than a left-winged biased soapbox and town cryers source of bull.
> 
> ...


So you went from proclaiming that his comeback would be huge in terms of marketing potential, then said we'll wait and see how big it is.

Do you play cornerback in the NFL? Because that was some pretty impressive backpedaling.


----------



## Chris Oz (Oct 8, 2005)

Edgecrusher said:


> Anything from bloomberg is garbage - so lI'll dismiss that crap right away.
> What once was a credible financial and economic outlet has become
> nothing more than a left-winged biased soapbox and town cryers source of bull.
> 
> ...


Nice ad hominem attack. Why try to find some actual stats yourself to back up you wild claim, when you can simply attack someone else's based on the fact that you think there sources are from \liberal, pinko b%^$#$ds. 

You really need to get your head out of Lance's rear and realize that cycling is a working class european sport. It is huge in Europe, it is just not that big in the US. 

Unfortunately for Lance he is quite unpopular in Europe and not because he won the tour 7 time, but because he acted like an a##hole most of the time while doing it. So in the market that counts, his comeback is more a negative than a positive. Finally whether he doped or not is immaterial. His is seen as being part of the old guard and the old guard are currently on the nose particularly with sponsors.


----------



## Sintesi (Nov 13, 2001)

Edgecrusher said:


> Not warped at all. In terms of money, it will be huge for the entire demographic the Tour
> covers. You may not understand marketing very well, because his comeback is a
> huge story and will attract a big number of additional fans in person and watching
> the broadcasts. Forget the cloud, minor heresay and envious whispers from
> ...


I'm sure the Giro has no problem w/ his comeback and is very very happy to have Armstrong on board. No question the man is a marketing goldmine.

That said, I'm dead sick of him but I do remember how great it was back 7-8 years ago before the second round of scandals and now mortifying cynicism. It was electric and I miss it. There's some part of me that wants to see him succeed again. But there's also big part of me that finds agreement w/ Kimmage both in message and tone. I'm afraid I see guys like him and Lemond as truth tellers.


----------



## Gnarly 928 (Nov 19, 2005)

"Lance is a doper" say it often enough and it must be true.

But with the new generation testing and his recent performance in that Leadville mtn bike epic, I'd say he'll be a contender again in Pro cycling, clean "for the first time ever" if that is what you want to believe...After all, all those times you've heard about him being a doper must make it so..

But not now, in the new modern generation of cycling, the "new school" of doping controls, the new teams..."High Road"....yeah, right, ok..sure..

Unless you've ridden a race that stays pretty much above 9000' elevation for 100+ miles, you just can not imagine the intensity of that effort...

I thought that performance was pretty impressive for an old fart like Lance...and for the local guy (old, too) who rode away from Lance to take the win. "Ol Lance's" second place, certified clean finish, still beat the old record for the course...Wonder how fast he would have done it back when he was 'doping it'...He is/was a doper, right? We all heard that..

Lets see some of the newbie "Golden-boys" of cycling...some of the big sponsor money making winners like Cavendish go try to even finish a race like that. Wait, no money in it, so it doesn't count..
Don Hanson


----------



## Sintesi (Nov 13, 2001)

philippec said:


> Yes, because sponsors are drawn to scandal like moths to a flame. Let me remind you that the United States counts for an infintesimal share of the cycling world market - even if it doubles due to the Lance effect, it will remain so. Let me also remind you that in the markets that count, Lance's return is seen as a throwback to a dope-laden era and is largely seen as a bad thing. Just the kind of stuff sponsors love!


Hi Phil,

I am curious about his sponsorship profile in Europe. In America obviously it was massive ($30 million a year man) but how was he at his height in European markets say compared to other champions past and current? Do you think the Giro welcomes his publicity in a positive light at all or is it solely calculating on his infamy? Perhaps "calculating" isn't the proper word here since Armstrong never violated any rules prohibiting his participation yet they seem to be welcoming him. 

Thanks


----------



## sevencycle (Apr 23, 2006)

*I'll drink to that !*



saird said:


> All that ranting simply makes me feel even more positive about lances return.


Maybe even one of those Texas beers that Lance likes. Maybe that is what he is *On* Beer and Coffee.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

sevencycle said:


> Maybe that is what he is *On* Beer and Coffee.


Maybe.... but not likely


----------



## Digger28 (Oct 9, 2008)

Gnarly 928 said:


> "Lance is a doper" say it often enough and it must be true.
> 
> But with the new generation testing and his recent performance in that Leadville mtn bike epic, I'd say he'll be a contender again in Pro cycling, clean "for the first time ever" if that is what you want to believe...After all, all those times you've heard about him being a doper must make it so..
> 
> ...


Lance racing in the Leadville is pretty much similar to riding up the Alps or Pyrenees alright!!! Also, those mountain ranges aren't at altitude at all sure!!!!
And with all the new testing, maybe you;d tell me where the test is for reinfusing your OWN blood? Blood doping is still rampant...and it's the doping of the rich and well organised...
And Cavendish et al riding a Leadville type race? I would imagine he was more worried about a little known race called the Olympics...and maybe, just maybe, he's now resting up, because he's been racing since January...unlike some Americans who appeared in June to race the Dauphine...and why in the name of everything would a SPRINTER like Cavendish enter into a Mountain bike race? And when Lance was racing until 2005, did he participate in the Leaville many times?
P.S. If you believe Lance got no money for his appearance at Leadville :mad2: 
Also, keep saying that Lance is a doper makes it true...no, but when you keep reading, listening to and weighing up the MOUNTAINS of evidence against him, then beyond a reasonable doubt, this makes it true!!!


----------



## cheddarlove (Oct 17, 2005)

I just wanted to give my 2 cents on France hating Lance. I have been there quite a few times touring for 1 month each time and although I never rode with racing cyclists, I spent time in camp sites, villages. Chambre d' hotes, bike shops and basically meandering from here to there. I have never heard a French person bad mouth Lance. I have not spoken to every person there but to say the French don't like Lance is a pretty broad statement that I feel must be taken with a grain of salt. Maybe they do and maybe they don't. As for Lance being part of the old guard, when did that era begin? 1903? When does it end? The day the Tour shuts it's doors?


----------

