- Mar 17, 2009
- 1,863
- 0
- 0
Kimmage has every right to be as vitriolic as he is. For years he and Walsh have been portrayed as petty bitter hacks who are pedalling false accusations. It is looking more and more likely, possibly certain, that they were absolutely right all along. If Armstrong is shown to have been doping as well as encouraging doping in his team-mates then Kimmage is bang on in his analogy of Armstrong as a returning tumour.flicker said:Truth is good. Honesty is good. Also I weigh things out in the big world.
My answer is I try to weigh out what I want to believe, fiction, truth to enjoy watching cycling. But then again, what do I know, I am just a newbie.
For instance Kimmage, doing his diatribe and analogy on cancer.
I wish he would just move on, it is bad for the sport how Kimmage carries himself.
Is Kimmage bringing on young cyclists to the sport, no.
I put ole Johnny Rotten on here because his step daughter passed away from cancer this last December. In December he did a BBC interview and never mentioned her. Class pure class Johnny.
I find the haters like Kimmage to be dismally droll and bitter.
I mean where does Paul get off on making analogies on cancer, uncalled for in my book.
I do think the people, who grind their axes with hatred for Lance, are a little over the top. I would leave that job to Novitzky and if Betsy testifies that is fine by me, under oath in a court of law.
Imo it is not so much if Armstrong is exposed rather when. When that happens hopefully anyone connected to him will be exposed too. If that means Hincapie, Leipheimer, Horner & all the ex-Posties, so be it. None of them have any business being in cycling in any way, shape or form.