Kimmage, Macur and others on Armstrong

[ExRower]

may I ask what the title of Bassons' book is?

 

[ultimobici]

may I ask what the title of Bassons' book is?

Positif
http://www.amazon.fr/Positif-Christophe-Bassons/dp/2234053064

 

[Benotti69]

What bone is Kimmage chasing? He wasn't chasing Armstrong too hard from 1999 to 2005.

It was Armstrong that said about Landis, "It's our word against his word, I like our word. We like our credibility." But what if a US court decides that it likes Landis's credibility? Where does that leave the UCI?

My guess is that that's the bone that Kimmage is happily digging for. And good luck to him.

Kimmage had turned away from writing about cycling during that period. he was writing about other sports.

dont see this as a bone to Kimmage, in fact i quite admire that he still keeps trying to get the truth out there. he could've said he had done his bit, now is the time for others to take up the cause and it isn't about selling books before some fanboy jumps in. a minority sport like cycling is not going to make your book sell millions and make you big money unless you are the greatest fraud in the history of sport.

 

[Granville57]

What's interesting to me about the legacy of Kimmage's book is that it gets labeled as just an outing of the doping culture. It is so much more than that. It is a very revealing look at life inside the peloton, on multiple levels. The detail with which he describes the brutality of the Tour is often left out (often deliberately) of people's assessment of his writing.

His retelling of the World Championships is worth the read on its own. It's just a very real accounting of the life of a pro, of which doping was inextricably bound for many. Much of the book has nothing to do with doping at all. He just tells like it was—with brutal honesty.

Since I have not read Kimmages'nor Walshs' books and am now seriously thinking about it as you have whetted my appetite I would like to ask you two things. Has reading those 2 books made you appreciate cycling and enjoy cycling more?http://forum.cyclingnews.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Sorry, didn't mean to drop out of the conversation...
(Got called away ["now boarding..!"] just as I was posting. Edited some minor typos in my OP for clarity)

But you ask a valid question.

The books are very different in both their approach and intentions. As I stated, I believe Rough Ride is often undervalued by some as a doping only story. To me, the book could just have easily been titled, Pro Cycling: everything you never knew (for the fan that thinks they do)
To answer your question, it definitely increased my appreciation for the sport. It gives one a glimpse of what goes on beyond the cameras and media attention. I've long been disappointed by how much camera-time only the race leaders seem to receive, when there's over a hundred riders behind them doing everything they can just to make the cut-off on any given stage of a Grand Tour. I understand some reasonable limits to the technology, but Kimmage gives the reader the view of life for all the other riders that is rarely, if ever, shown on TV.

Another main point that is often overlooked is the deep passion that Kimmage had growing up, and continues to have to this day, for the sport of cycling. It is this contagious and wickedly candid perspective that makes the book so compelling.

Walsh's book has a very different agenda. It is pointed and unsparing in its accusations in the effort to expose the Armstrong myth. Did it make me "enjoy cycling more?" I never thought of it those terms, to be honest. It was illuminating in many, many ways. It certainly didn't take away any appreciation or joy I have for the sport. It was shocking at times, but the truth often is. Both books are well worth the time, for very different reasons.

 

[Benotti69]

Sorry, didn't mean to drop out of the conversation...
(Got called away ["now boarding..!"] just as I was posting. Edited some minor typos in my OP for clarity)

But you ask a valid question.

The books are very different in both their approach and intentions. As I stated, I believe Rough Ride is often undervalued by some as a doping only story. To me, the book could just have easily been titled, Pro Cycling: everything you never knew (for the fan that thinks they do)
To answer your question, it definitely increased my appreciation for the sport. It gives one a glimpse of what goes on beyond the cameras and media attention. I've long been disappointed by how much camera-time only the race leaders seem to receive, when there's over a hundred riders behind them doing everything they can just to make the cut-off on any given stage of a Grand Tour. I understand some reasonable limits to the technology, but Kimmage gives the reader the view of life for all the other riders that is rarely, if ever, shown on TV.

Another main point that is often overlooked is the deep passion that Kimmage had growing up, and continues to have to this day, for the sport of cycling. It is this contagious and wickedly candid perspective that makes the book so compelling.

Walsh's book has a very different agenda. It is pointed and unsparing in its accusations in the effort to expose the Armstrong myth. Did it make me "enjoy cycling more?" I never thought of it those terms, to be honest. It was illuminating in many, many ways. It certainly didn't take away any appreciation or joy I have for the sport. It was shocking at times, but the truth often is. Both books are well worth the time, for very different reasons.

Kimmage's book won the 1990 william hill award for the reasons you list above.

 

[Digger]

Yes, Lance is guilty. There I said it. Guilty of not outing all the other dopers in cycling. I apologized to Beth last night on this thread. History.

I do not care if everyone here wants to burn a witch named Lance.

Maybe I am the ship that arrived to late to save a drowning witch.

You 'apologised'. Yes in the same way you apologised to Greg's son about the things you said about Greg for years. You don;t have the courage or moral conviction to stand by your views when those people are present and you know they are reading your posts. If you believed truthfully in what you said, then why apologise? If you had any evidence to back up your views, again, you would not and should not apologise.

 

[Chuffy]

Just because I won't abandon cycling does not mean I will not cheer from the rooftops when the investigation "hangs" Armstrong. His generation of riders are the reason our sport is up to its neck in ***. The reason I want the Postal/Armstrong fraud exposed in full is because of the collateral damage it may inflict on McQuaid & Co. That is the real prize. Armstrong is history anyway and irrelevant to the future. The UCI is still here and looking more and more inept and corrupt, if that is possible, by the day. The sooner that organisation is dismantled the better. If it requires a temporary hiatus from the Olympics maybe that is a price we have to pay.

Sorry, late to the party as usual...
The bit in bold stuck out when I read through this. I have to disagree. If EPO, HGH etc had been round back in the days of Anquetil, Merckx, Coppi or even Garin, Petit-Breton et al do you really think they wouldn't have been taking full advantage? All the EPO generation were doing was continuing in a long and ignoble tradition.

As for the rest of your post - yes, absolutely.

Incidentally, did everyone forget their 'do not feed' New Years resolutions? Pity, because the Clinic would be a better place if people stopped derailling threads by trying to explain stuff to idiots who just want to p!ss in the swimming pool.

 

[Captain_Cavman]

Sorry. When you put out a whopper reflecting on the latest lie (didn't get paid), you have to try and do it with a straight face. Adding smilies cheapens it - but can be misleading without.

No need to apologise, I just didn't get it. I hadn't read the relevant thread.

Kimmage had turned away from writing about cycling during that period. he was writing about other sports.

dont see this as a bone to Kimmage, in fact i quite admire that he still keeps trying to get the truth out there. he could've said he had done his bit, now is the time for others to take up the cause and it isn't about selling books before some fanboy jumps in. a minority sport like cycling is not going to make your book sell millions and make you big money unless you are the greatest fraud in the history of sport.

I think we may be in agreement there. All I was trying to say was that his deeper interest may lie in shaking up the UCI. After all, the phrase, "Cycling gets the champions it deserves." seems more critical of cycling than it does of its champions.

 

[flicker]

You 'apologised'. Yes in the same way you apologised to Greg's son about the things you said about Greg for years. You don;t have the courage or moral conviction to stand by your views when those people are present and you know they are reading your posts. If you believed truthfully in what you said, then why apologise? If you had any evidence to back up your views, again, you would not and should not apologise.

I do not like to bring women or peoples children into doping controversies. Except for Riccos girlfriend, who potentially could hurt her own child.

Obviously there is a lot of pain among individuals and to put more pain upon them would be uncalled for.

So I have been out of line, that is uncalled for I apologized. I was wrong.

As far as doping goes in cycling I thought everyone who has been involved in the sport either knows about it, looks the other way, has teammates who have willfully doped, Digger you know the story.

To me it is an issue. Kimmage and Walshe have good points. My issue is that sometimes it is better to look the other way. Everything has a down side so why dwell in that gutter.

Thank you for reading this and I apologize for anything I have said to offend you and anyone else here. I will try to take the high road from here on out. flicker

 

[fatandfast]

one really lucky thing for Lance is if a really good writer and cycling journalist like
William Fotheringham was on his case he would be toast..as long as it's Kimmage there is still hope

 

[Digger]

one really lucky thing for Lance is if a really good writer and cycling journalist like
William Fotheringham was on his case he would be toast..as long as it's Kimmage there is still hope

What has Kimmage or Walsh done wrong? Two award winning writers and journalists....what makes Fotheringham a better writer?

 

[BotanyBay]

one really lucky thing for Lance is if a really good writer and cycling journalist like
William Fotheringham was on his case he would be toast..as long as it's Kimmage there is still hope

Kimmage is like E.F Hutton. People listen.

 

[Winterfold]

one really lucky thing for Lance is if a really good writer and cycling journalist like
William Fotheringham was on his case he would be toast..as long as it's Kimmage there is still hope

you're having a laugh aren't you? Fotheringham is one of the UK's best sports journalists for sure, but Kimmage is an OUTSTANDING journalist of any description, any subject.

If your comment is more to do with the fact that Kimmage has a small amount of form as a pro cyclist who doped, so pot meet kettle etc then fair enough, but it doesnt read like that.

As a writer, he is better than Fotheringham, who is already very good.

The other thing with Kimmage is that his own narrative is inextricably intertwined with cycling's grand narrative, you know he really loves the sport and cant bear to be away from it, but at the same time, he knows that huge parts of it must come crashing down, as long as it is seen as the druggy loser sport by the MSM and public.

 

[Benotti69]

one really lucky thing for Lance is if a really good writer and cycling journalist like
William Fotheringham was on his case he would be toast..as long as it's Kimmage there is still hope

William Fotheringham is part of the Rouleur magazine?. i bet they have not published anything whatsoever to do with doping.

Fotheringham has written many books on cycling none of them about doping. He translated Will Voet's book in 1991, that is all.

Fotheringham's specialises in cycling and rugby for the Guardian, not much in there about Pharmastrong and his doping or the Novitsky case. NYT and WSJ have written reams more than Fotheringham has on this.

maybe when Uniballer is sunk we'll see him cash in with a book

 

[ultimobici]

Fotheringham's specialises in cycling and rugby for the Guardian, not much in there about Pharmastrong and his doping or the Novitsky case. NYT and WSJ have written reams more than Fotheringham has on this.

I take it then that you haven't read his book about Simpson which describes in detail the effect amphetamine had on Simpson on the Ventoux?

 

[fatandfast]

William Fotheringham is part of the Rouleur magazine?. i bet they have not published anything whatsoever to do with doping.

Fotheringham has written many books on cycling none of them about doping. He translated Will Voet's book in 1991, that is all.

Fotheringham's specialises in cycling and rugby for the Guardian, not much in there about Pharmastrong and his doping or the Novitsky case. NYT and WSJ have written reams more than Fotheringham has on this.

maybe when Uniballer is sunk we'll see him cash in with a book

Put Me Back On The Bike and Fallen Angel both have lots of doping references. Super funny story about Coppi dispatching his brother and other staff to check out hotel rooms of his competitors paying close attention to the garbage cans looking for drug remains. His brother Serse was described as a little ugly was but equipped w a huge bike pump, very popular with the ladies. He and Bartali spent lots of time trying to match the dose and drug of the other guy so they would get caught off guard. Coppi made the Pope furious,,not about doping but messing around on his wife. The Pope would not bless some races where Coppi was entered.

 

[Benotti69]

Put Me Back On The Bike and Fallen Angel both have lots of doping references. Super funny story about Coppi dispatching his brother and other staff to check out hotel rooms of his competitors paying close attention to the garbage cans looking for drug remains. His brother Serse was described as a little ugly was but equipped w a huge bike pump, very popular with the ladies. He and Bartali spent lots of time trying to match the dose and drug of the other guy so they would get caught off guard. Coppi made the Pope furious,,not about doping but messing around on his wife. The Pope would not bless some races where Coppi was entered.

Hurrah, easy to write about the dead. When is he gonna get serious about modern doping?

 

[Benotti69]

I take it then that you haven't read his book about Simpson which describes in detail the effect amphetamine had on Simpson on the Ventoux?

Yes, i want to know when he is gonna have a crack at the EPO era and now?