Two brilliant Kimmage interviews

[sniper]

wanted to post them in a separate thread just so they don't drown in the threads where they got posted.
both these kimmage interviews are nothing short of brilliant.
any discussion of the interviews can remain in the respective threads as far as i'm concerned, but that's up to you guys.

1.

Paul Kimmage interview

reviewed by JPM London:

This is a brilliant interview w Kimmage and Whittle.

Seriously (about 14 mins in) when Kimmage talks about 99 and how when all the riders from the previous year (Ullrich et al) stepped back on the doping because of what happened in 98 and how the LA positive in the early part of the race was covered up how that changed everything. How the game was back on. How that small window of opportunity for changing the sport was closed again because the UCI facilitated a new doper to be the image of the new clean era...
That hurt inside. I freely admit I almost started crying...
No matter you already know this to be, just having it said out loud just brings it home...

If nothing changes - if McQuaid gets to carry on as if nothing happened. If UCI gets to carry on as if nothing happened - that's just too painful.

2.

Kimmage interview on Irish radio tonight. It starts at 32 mins and 30 secs in. He rips into the UCI and talks about spending the 2008 Tour with Garmin and hearing shocking stories about Armstrong. Listen to the Irish presenters after the interview finishes. They also criticise Armstrong and pull no punches in doing so.

http://media.newstalk.ie/listenback/22/friday/1/popup

brief review by Dr. Maserati:

Wow - they sure don't pull any punches. And it is refreshing to hear people separate what somebody does for cancer and that they are a drugs fraud.
Thanks for that.

 

[DirtyWorks]

#2 is awesome. It can't be made any clearer than that. And, the interviewer was fair and asked a couple of tough questions.

 

[Benotti69]

Well played Mr Sniper.

Excellent idea for singling them out into a seperate thread. Chapeau.

 

[The Hitch]

tuned into newsnight hoping to see an Armstrong fan vs a hater. But like everywhere else it was just 1 "expert" interviewed what the case was about.

Anyone have anything of the former? Now that would be fun.

 

[OldManThyme]

In the second one I posted the link to they talk earlier in the show about Betsy Andreu and rip into Armstrong from 8 mins to 13 mins.
Also listen between 16 mins and 35 secs and 22 mins 10 secs where the

Good post. Thanks

 

[The Hitch]

Anyone got any more links, not just of kimmage, but anything from today worth listening too, please post.

 

[86TDFWinner]

Christine Brennan from USA Today will be on CNN on Piers Morgan's show at 2am UK time to discuss it. Should be worth listening to especially after his tweet earlier.

Can someone please post the Brennan interview here for those of us who have to work? Much appreciated.

 

[The Hitch]

Christine Brennan from USA Today will be on CNN on Piers Morgan's show at 2am UK time to discuss it. Should be worth listening to especially after his tweet earlier.

Thanks.
Though as appetising as that sounds, i do not know if i can put up with piers morgan. Today has been about ******bags getting it handed to them, not to see the biggest one britain has ever produced conducting a show on a respected american broadcaster.

edit, hmmm who knew that word would be censored. It was a d word which rhymes with a former US nat champion named Matthew, nothing too serious.

 

[DominicDecoco]

tuned into newsnight hoping to see an Armstrong fan vs a hater. But like everywhere else it was just 1 "expert" interviewed what the case was about.

Anyone have anything of the former? Now that would be fun.

I just found this which turned out to be quite funny. I thought I was going to listen to two tv hosts who were defending Lance. I was quite surprised. I just wish he would interrupt the clueless on the left when he said that Lance never has been tested positive. Skip Baylesst is probably well known by some in here. I didn't know him and his stand on this though. Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3K_9CAiSGs

 

[luckyboy]

Paul Kimmage and David Walsh have been great today.

edit: Missed the Newstalk one before. I love Kimmage.

 

[The Hitch]

I just found this which turned out to be quite funny. I thought I was going to listen to two tv hosts who were defending Lance. I was quite surprised. I just wish he would interrupt the clueless on the left when he said that Lance never has been tested positive. Skip Baylesst is probably well known by some in here. I didn't know him and his stand on this though. Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3K_9CAiSGs

Thank you

 

[Altitude]

Lol, the game was "back on" because of Lance at the 99 tour? What about Pantani at the 99 giro? That race was really clean . Lance probably wouldn't even have won that tour if it weren't for Passage du Gois - what does that say about his rivals? I'm sorry but the whole "cycling would have been ok if it weren't for Lance" is a complete load of sh!t.

 

[The Hitch]

OMG the lass Christine Brennan on cnn kicked ***. Wow just wow, nothing i saw today was as anywhere near as articulate, well argued and devestating as what she said in those 5 minutes.

" its nice of Lance to try to say that and pull the wool over everybodies eyes but the reality is in this part at this time, 2012, you can definaely get away with it by cheating and obviously being able to pass drugs tests, because that is no indication anymore becuase the bad chemists are way ahead of the good chemists"

 

[The Hitch]

Lol, the game was "back on" because of Lance at the 99 tour? What about Pantani at the 99 giro? That race was really clean . Lance probably wouldn't even have won that tour if it weren't for Passage du Gois - what does that say about his rivals? I'm sorry but the whole "cycling would have been ok if it weren't for Lance" is a complete load of sh!t.

I agree, and thats why i think Kimmage doesnt know much about doping. Dont get me wrong, I admire Kimmage as much as the next guy, dude has some balls, but to say the doping battle would have been won if not for Armstrong, is imo wrong, especially since there were hundreds of ways to pass drugs tests without UCI complicity.

Having said that, perhaps the 1999 Tour, if nothing else, might have been cleaner, as Lances epo positives in the 99 samples, were among a surprising few to contain epo.

 

[hrotha]

He didn't say he would have been won, he said there was a window of opportunity that was missed. The Giro was dirty as ever, but the guy who was going to win it was effectively busted, and the teams went to France terrified of what the police would do to them if they were found out. Then here comes US Postal and obliterates everybody.

 

[Altitude]

He didn't say he would have been won, he said there was a window of opportunity that was missed. The Giro was dirty as ever, but the guy who was going to win it was effectively busted, and the teams went to France terrified of what the police would do to them if they were found out. Then here comes US Postal and obliterates everybody.

They may have been terrified of bringing their goods to France but they sure as hell prepared for the race exactly as they would any other year. 99 tour was as filthy as any. With or without Lance.

 

[The Hitch]

He didn't say he would have been won, he said there was a window of opportunity that was missed. The Giro was dirty as ever, but the guy who was going to win it was effectively busted, and the teams went to France terrified of what the police would do to them if they were found out. Then here comes US Postal and obliterates everybody.

Agree.

What he said was if the UCI did their job about Lance and the positve for corticoids in 99 there probably would'nt of been no Lance Armstrong in the years to come regarding the Tour de France and it would of sent out the right message about the sport going forward.

That was the window of opportunity missed.

Right, say they ban Armstrong for his corticoid slip up (which anyway would have been just another cyclist banned for doping, peanuts compared to what they just had with Pantani and Festina)

Next year Ullrich Beloki Heras Virenique come in, juiced on epo for which there isnt a test yet and the steroids they have and all the other tricks they know.

These clean cyclists who saw the hope of cllean sport with Lance getting banned, they finish where exactly?

 

[The Hitch]

I am not saying that Lance getting banned in 99 would of ended all the doping problems in cycling but it would of been a right step in the right direction if UCI had the courage to do so, it certainly would of showed that they meant business and no cyclist irrespective of his standing in the sport was above being convicted especially considering Lance was in yellow at the time and people were fascinated by his comeback from cancer. Armstrong immediately knew he had the UCI wrapped around his little finger after that.

Also we did'nt exactly see the UCI and especially Jean Marie-Leblanc backing Christophe Bassons when he was outspoken during that Tour. Infact we saw JML criticise Bassons at the time.

Had Lance been rightfully banned and the likes of Christophe Bassons got the backing he should of got by the UCI and ASO at the time, I am sure we would see the sport in a lot better light and condition than we see today.

There was a huge opportunity missed back then especially coming after the farce of the 98 Tour.

What you say is true in that the uci behaved wrong. They could have taken an anti doping stance. But i don't see why this was a huge opportunity. In hindsight they wouldn't have been able to stop dopers dominating cycling for another 8or 9 years at the least.

So huge opportunity to do what? To show they are anti doping? It was an opportunity but they could.do that at anytime with a different example, didn't have to be right then.

 

[keeponrollin]

What you say is true in that the uci behaved wrong. They could have taken an anti doping stance. But i don't see why this was a huge opportunity. In hindsight they wouldn't have been able to stop dopers dominating cycling for another 8or 9 years at the least.

So huge opportunity to do what? To show they are anti doping? It was an opportunity but they could.do that at anytime with a different example, didn't have to be right then.

I think the key point that PK was making; was that the UCI had an opportunity to take the disgrace of the Festina affair in 1998 & to give some encouragement to the non-dopers, by demonstrating to them, that they had their backs, & they would do their best to drive the dopers out, & give the non-dopers a level playing field to compete on.

Instead the UCI immediately smashed any delusions the honest pros in the field might have had, by giving LA a pass when he tested positive.

In that single action they showed any non-dopers in the field, & even any previous dopers who had arrived clean at the TdF expecting a new order; that the same **** was going to happen, & all the talk in 1998 was just that .. talk !

"McQuaid delenda est !"

 

[The Hitch]

Tell me what rider with regards to not adhering to the omerta could the UCI and ASO back now in 2012 if they wished to?

Wiggins duh

There was a huge opportunity for the UCI and ASO to back Bassons who had no intention of adhering to the omerta. If they backed him, who knows we may of seen more riders follow his route as the years went on especially if they had the support from the people at the top of the sport. But what do we see, Bassons being isolated and being bullied out of ths sport with Armstrong telling him to leave the Tour that year. No rider was going to speak out on that level again after what happenned him. It just showed the strenght of the omerta and the UCI and ASO done sweet FA about it.[

I think the continued success of dopers would flush out the benefits of the uci backing those who spoke out, and that no one.would do it, but maybe im wrong.

 

[poupou]

If they don't try , they would not successed. So 1999 was a missed opportunity.

 

[Cycle Chic]

Final comments in the RTE interview - Whittle mentioning Wiggin's outburst was also excellent.

 

[TubularBills]

I thought I'd repost Hiero2's David Walsh link here (easier to find):

The David Walsh and David Ullman BBC interview can be found here:
http://www.steephill.tv/players/720/qt/?title=Lance+Armstrong+Analysis,+interviews+w/+David+Walsh+&+Doug+Ullman&dashboard=&id=velorooms.com/files/bbc_radio_five_live_ullman_slater_walsh_240812.mp3&yr=2012

 

[sniper]

I've been noticing Vaughters systematically avoids talking about Kimmage. I find that odd for a guy who proclaims to fight for clean cycling like Kimmage obviously does and has done.

In the Bicycling interview, the interviewer no less than two times explicitly drops the name Kimmage in the hope for a pointed reply, and both times JV chooses a bit awkwardly to talk his way around Kimmage, almost as if he's deliberately avoiding him.

Exhibit 1:

Interviewer: One of my first experiences with that was the reaction to Paul Kimmage, when Verbruggen said it was simply sour grapes from guys who couldn’t cut it anymore.

Vaughters: Yes—I’m first to say that without—let’s start with Kimmage, and I’m sure there was someone before that, but that without Kimmage, without Frankie [Andreu], without Floyd [Landis], Tyler [Hamilton], without Jorg Jaksche, [Bjarne] Riis, you can go on and on, without all these people, the op-ed I wrote and the impact I feel like it’s having, I don’t know if that would be possible without those people. In fact, I’d say it probably wasn’t. I feel like the only reason, in a roundabout way, everything that Floyd went through and the scandal of [Operación] Puerto, like those two things, that whole three-year period, the pressure that put the sport under to clean up and put in new measures and the scrutiny it was under, that was the soil that allowed [Garmin’s] Ryder [Hesjedal] to win the Giro d’Italia clean. To me it’s not separable. If you have no Puerto, you have no Floyd Landis scandal, can you win the 2012 Giro clean? I don’t think so.

Exhibit 2:

Vaughters: The reality in 1996 was very, very, very bleak. Who was talking about doping in 1996?

Interviewer: Paul Kimmage.

Vaughters: OK, Paul was. One guy. Now, the problem is in a very good place. It’s not perfect but it’s better than I’ve ever seen it. And right now doping is far more of a topic. So I feel like it might be another 10-year lag time before finally the perception catches up.

http://www.bicycling.com/garmin-ins...nathan-vaughters-talks-doping-reform?page=0,0

So why isn't Vaughters all over the place lauding and praising Kimmage, arguably the only journalist besides Walsh to have taken on the fight against doping?

 

[Benotti69]

I've been noticing Vaughters systematically avoids talking about Kimmage. I find that odd for a guy who proclaims to fight for clean cycling like Kimmage obviously does and has done.

In the Bicycling interview, the interviewer no less than two times explicitly drops the name Kimmage in the hope for a pointed reply, and both times JV chooses a bit awkwardly to talk his way around Kimmage, almost as if he's deliberately avoiding him.

Exhibit 1:


Exhibit 2:

http://www.bicycling.com/garmin-ins...nathan-vaughters-talks-doping-reform?page=0,0

So why isn't Vaughters all over the place lauding and praising Kimmage, arguably the only journalist besides Walsh to have taken on the fight against doping?

I think Pierre Ballester and Jeremy Whittle are up there alongside Kimmage and Walsh.

But i agree, for all the praise Kimmage gives to Garmin, it is strange to hear Vaughter's avoid returning it.

But there are lots of things about JV that dont add up.