Interview with paul Kimmage

Mar 12, 2009
434
0
0
It is interesting, Kimmage has a long relationship with LA, he certainly isn't ecstatic of his return, but great to hear the other side of the fight.
 
Mar 10, 2009
272
0
0
I'm not sure if Lance is on dope of any kind. Too risky for him. But if he isn't, here is one possible explanation.

When he got treated for cancer he looked at many options. He took one that obviously worked, but there is this therapy (not sure if it helps with cancer or not) that was discovered where they can change your genes in someway to increase your strength permanently by a significant amount (I think up to 1/3). The off side to it is that you also eat more and get more angry. Perhaps Armstrong knew he's career was history so thought 'what the hell'. Sorry don't have sources to quote, but remember reading it.

I guess it could explain why Armstrong came back so much stronger in 99 onwards (especially in timetrialling - weight loss no help here). Armstrong took dope pre 1996 and still wasn't anywhere near where he was in 99? How do we explain that? I guess this is one theory.
 
I wasn't really interested in the LA re hash. It was only part of the interview.
More interested in what he had to say about other sports, such as tennis and athletics.
Shows he's not on an LA witch-hunt, but an anti-doping in pro sport, crusade.

It's not a message many people want to hear.
 
Indurain said:
I'm not sure if Lance is on dope of any kind. Too risky for him. But if he isn't, here is one possible explanation.

When he got treated for cancer he looked at many options. He took one that obviously worked, but there is this therapy (not sure if it helps with cancer or not) that was discovered where they can change your genes in someway to increase your strength permanently by a significant amount (I think up to 1/3). The off side to it is that you also eat more and get more angry. Perhaps Armstrong knew he's career was history so thought 'what the hell'. Sorry don't have sources to quote, but remember reading it.

I guess it could explain why Armstrong came back so much stronger in 99 onwards (especially in timetrialling - weight loss no help here). Armstrong took dope pre 1996 and still wasn't anywhere near where he was in 99? How do we explain that? I guess this is one theory.
i used to be that naive.
 
Mar 11, 2009
77
0
0
dirty

that is, as it is.
kimmage is on target and has been given bad press for telling the truth.

we all love cyclesport and it is really i feckin terrible that the sport has been so filthy.
i hope it is cleaning up. Get rid of Riis and the 'old guard' management and let the youth return integrity to cycling.


http://www.bikepure.org

if you feel the same
 
Mar 12, 2009
434
0
0
Mellow Velo said:
I wasn't really interested in the LA re hash. It was only part of the interview.
More interested in what he had to say about other sports, such as tennis and athletics.Shows he's not on an LA witch-hunt, but an anti-doping in pro sport, crusade.

It's not a message many people want to hear.
That's the thing that makes my blood boil, cycling is trying to fix this problem, tennis and athletics seem to have their heads in the sand.....but because cycling is publically fighting the battle they get all the negative press.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY