• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team. Thanks!

Paul Kimmage

Page 21 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Re: Re:

Merckx index said:
The adjective is integral, but it has a different meaning from the one usually implied by integrity—it refers to wholeness in a group sense rather than in an individual sense.
There is no adjective: you say he is a man of integrity or you pick a different word. You certainly wouldn't use integer. Or even integral.
 
Mar 11, 2009
1,005
0
0
Visit site
Re: Re:

sniper said:
the delgados said:
sniper said:
That's not to take anything away from Kimmage, by the way.
As far as I can tell (and FWIW) he is one of the most integer personalities in the game.
It's merely that I don't believe that at the pro-level of any sport, ethics play any kind of role of significance when it comes to taking PEDs yes/no.

Admittedly, I had to look up the word "integer" but i think that's a great way to describe Paul Kimmage.
Also, I agree with everything you said regarding the role morals and ethics play in professional sports.
As an aspiring young rider from a non-cycling nation, I remember feeling mixed emotions when Rough Ride was published. Part of me felt disillusioned, while another part kept saying, "get on with it, you poor bastard."
The guy obviously had talent, and it was bloody obvious a pill or two would have taken him to another level in a sport that was designed to make most everyone fail.
cheers delgados.

The adjective integer is fairly common in Dutch in reference to someone who has integrity.
Maybe a native speaker can tell us if we can use it like this in English?

Integer in English, or actually American English to the extent there is a difference, is a math term that means "number" more or less.
 
Listened to the whole podcast and tbh if you have read Rough Ride, there is nothing really new or revealing in the interview. The interviewer had clearly read Rough Ride as all his questions are based on segments from the book.

Bits of note.

Kimmage didn't find the Roche performance on La Plagne suspicious, but he did find his recovery the following day suspicious saying Roche was able to attack Delgado. That is true, but it was on the descent of the Joux Plane that Roche attacked so it was more of a battle of nerves than strength at that point. Still that would also have always been the suspicious point of that Tour for me as well, how well Roche recovered after La Plagne. What he might have taken is a good question.

Kimmage said he didnt think the Roche treble(Giro, Tour, Worlds) was overly suspicious in general. He seems to believe that the Worlds victory was more by chance than performance.

Doesn't think much has changed since his day, but is not asked what that opinion is based on.

He clearly doesn't like Eurosport as they don't talk enough about doping enough for his liking and wants more riders to speak out.

Apart from reading Rough Ride, I dont think the interviewer was clued in enough to cycling to do a really good job.

I should also add, he mentions beating all the Russians and East Germans at the Worlds in 1985. Clearly the interview didnt think to ask him how a clean rider could beat all those dirty Commies :cool:
 
pmcg76 said:
Kimmage didn't find the Roche performance on La Plagne suspicious, but he did find his recovery the following day suspicious saying Roche was able to attack Delgado. That is true, but it was on the descent of the Joux Plane that Roche attacked so it was more of a battle of nerves than strength at that point. Still that would also have always been the suspicious point of that Tour for me as well, how well Roche recovered after La Plagne. What he might have taken is a good question.
Given what we know now - thanx to you - about what Visentini was saying in 1986, some guesses are obvious, right?
 
fmk_RoI said:
pmcg76 said:
Kimmage didn't find the Roche performance on La Plagne suspicious, but he did find his recovery the following day suspicious saying Roche was able to attack Delgado. That is true, but it was on the descent of the Joux Plane that Roche attacked so it was more of a battle of nerves than strength at that point. Still that would also have always been the suspicious point of that Tour for me as well, how well Roche recovered after La Plagne. What he might have taken is a good question.
Given what we know now - thanx to you - about what Visentini was saying in 1986, some guesses are obvious, right?


Yeah, first thing that comes to mind, but would that even have been necessary. Would they have been holding a reserve for just such a situation. I guess they were not that far from Italy so it is a possibility a re-supply could have been brought in. Maybe just the normal recovery products were sufficent.
 
Forgot to add perhaps the most intersting bit, Kimmage said they were looked after better in Tour 87 than 86 because they had real doctors as opposed to the soigneurs who he described as akin to witchdoctors. A few follow up questions would have been good at that point, but as I said the interviewer wasnt knowledgable enough about the sport.
 
pmcg76 said:
Forgot to add perhaps the most intersting bit, Kimmage said they were looked after better in Tour 87 than 86 because they had real doctors as opposed to the soigneurs who he described as akin to witchdoctors. A few follow up questions would have been good at that point, but as I said the interviewer wasnt knowledgable enough about the sport.
Someone can check but I think RMO's doc at that time was Bernard Aguilanu and Willy Voet says he was anti-doping.
 
fmk_RoI said:
pmcg76 said:
Forgot to add perhaps the most intersting bit, Kimmage said they were looked after better in Tour 87 than 86 because they had real doctors as opposed to the soigneurs who he described as akin to witchdoctors. A few follow up questions would have been good at that point, but as I said the interviewer wasnt knowledgable enough about the sport.
Someone can check but I think RMO's doc at that time was Bernard Aguilanu and Willy Voet says he was anti-doping.

In Rough Ride, Kimmage mentions the team doctors offering a syringe of a product that stimulated production of cortisone, synatchen it was called. Dont know if it was banned or not, but Kimmage refused it. He also noted that he was not pressured to dope by the doctors in the interview.
 
Integer in English, or actually American English to the extent there is a difference, is a math term that means "number" more or less.

Nick C.
True that.
This is really neither here nor there, but I was totally confused until I scrolled all the way down the definition page to find the word's origin: untouched, whole--i.e. untainted, pure.
Anyhow, enough of that.
Carry on.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
The interview was done as an event to raise money for the Irish Hospice Foundation. Kimmage picked Joe Molloy to interview him. Molloy is a decent interviewer with a slight ego, but cycling is not his specialist subject, golf is. Molloy was not paid. Kimmage was not trying to break journalistic ground on doping, it was meant as a reminisce about a special event in Irish cycling 30 years ago.

It could have been better on a lot of fronts but it was intended to be a fund raiser and I think it achieved that.

I dont think Kimmage is as knowledgable about cycling as some think he is. There are definitely more knowledgable people on the doping side.
 
pmcg76 said:
Kimmage didn't find the Roche performance on La Plagne suspicious, but he did find his recovery the following day suspicious saying Roche was able to attack Delgado. That is true, but it was on the descent of the Joux Plane that Roche attacked so it was more of a battle of nerves than strength at that point.

Not just nerves, but also skill. Roche was a superb descender. That a guy who had won the downhill ITT in the Giro that year could ride away from a rival on a descent is not remotely suspicious.