Kimmage At The Tour

[B. Lafferty]

The Sunday Times July 02, 2006


Cycling: Cycle of ambition
PAUL KIMMAGE

In 1986 I rode the Tour de France as a wide-eyed 24-year-old. Is
there anybody like me in this year's peloton?




::nobreak::For a long time now I've had this love/hate
relationship with the Tour de France. I love the event but I hate the people
who have destroyed it. And every summer a recurring battle rages in my head
.. . .

"I'm really looking forward to The Open." "You should go back to
the Tour." "I went to the Tour last year." "Yeah, you stayed for three days
and wrote a story about drugs. Why not cover the race from start to finish?"
"Three weeks?" "Yeah." "That's a lot of drugs stories." "You don't have to
write exclusively about drugs; you've competed in this race three times. Why
not write a diary about how it feels to go back?" "Because I'd rather write
a diary about The Open." "You never played in The Open." "No, but I'm
working on my handicap." "Think about it." "No."

But, four weeks ago, a funny thing happened. I had been planning
this bike ride in the Alps with my brothers and some friends for months. We
caught a flight to Geneva, hired a mini-bus and drove south to Grenoble
towards Gap. Grenoble used to be home during my time as a professional racer
and as we drove through the suburbs and up the Côte de Laffrey, my mind
started flooding with memories of what seems another life.

"You know," I announced, "when I rode the Tour I was still with
the leaders when we came up here in 1987."

"You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour the stage was a little
bit different to the one we're going to ride tomorrow."

"You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour the race was 400
kilometres longer and we had only one rest day."

"You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour we were given just
five pairs of shorts and five jerseys to get us through the three weeks and
I had to hand-wash my kit after every second stage."

It didn't take long before a white flag was raised. "Listen
mate, no offence," my friend Harry announced. "But I think we'll have to
restrict you to the number of times you can say 'When I rode the Tour'
tomorrow."

"Fair enough," I conceded. "How does a hundred sound?" Next
morning everybody was buzzing as we pedalled out of Gap on a truly glorious
day. Three hours later, sweating and exhausted, we crested the summit of the
Col d'Izoard (2,360m), one of the Tour's most fabled climbs, and it was time
for a break. Harry was once an amateur international but had never
experienced anything like the Col d'Izoard.

"Christ," he said, "that was brutal." And then he put his arm on
my shoulder: "Listen, you can say 'When I rode the Tour' as much as you like
from now on. Respect." The rest of the group nodded in approval: "Yeah,
respect mate."

I laughed and tried to brush it off but suddenly there was a
lump in my throat and I felt deeply moved. It was the nicest thing anybody
had ever said about my life as a professional cyclist; I had always been
dismissed as a journeyman who was never any good.

Suddenly, I was reminded that there is much more to the Tour
than the race for the yellow jersey. And, at that moment, I knew I had to
return................




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2252601,00.html

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

=====================================
(A more-telling quote from the article referenced)-
David, why should we treat anything you say with any credibility?" I asked.
"Maybe I was wrong," he said.

The press conference continued. He started lecturing again. "The sport was
moving in the right direction," he insisted. "What's happened in Spain was
fantastic," he said. "The organised schematic doping is being eradicated,"
he said. "We need to get rid of the doctors," he said. And, finally, my
favourite: "We have a responsibility as professional cyclists to convince
the young guys coming through that it's possible to win without drugs."

Nobody challenged him. There wasn't a single writer in the room who asked:
"How would you know?" Furious, I raised my arm again. "David, you say that
the Spanish (doping) affair is fantastic for the sport and for the future of
the young kids coming into it . . . But that's exactly what was said in 1998
(after the Festina affair). And you were the young kid then . . .

"Why should we believe anything you say? You have no credibility?" "At the
moment I have no credibility . . . I've said it . . . You can't believe
anything I say." "Thanks," I said. I just wanted to clarify that.
========================================

I haven't read anything quite so bitter about a sport in quite some time.
Particularly bothersome is the manner in which he goes on the attack with
David Millar... if that exchange actually happened, it appears totally
classless and unfortunate, putting the poor guy in a corner that he couldn't
possibly hope to fight out of.

His total indictment is of *modern* cycling, as if he has some special
credibility from racing in the mid-80s, when there were no doping issues.

Ignorance was bliss for him then, yet he feels quite differently about those
in the sport now.

The article is definitely worth reading, if only because it may enlighten
those who don't quite understand the world the original poster chooses to
live in.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com



"B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> The Sunday Times July 02, 2006
>
>
> Cycling: Cycle of ambition
> PAUL KIMMAGE
>
> In 1986 I rode the Tour de France as a wide-eyed 24-year-old.
> Is there anybody like me in this year's peloton?
>
>
>
>
> ::nobreak::For a long time now I've had this love/hate
> relationship with the Tour de France. I love the event but I hate the
> people who have destroyed it. And every summer a recurring battle rages in
> my head . . .
>
> "I'm really looking forward to The Open." "You should go back
> to the Tour." "I went to the Tour last year." "Yeah, you stayed for three
> days and wrote a story about drugs. Why not cover the race from start to
> finish?" "Three weeks?" "Yeah." "That's a lot of drugs stories." "You
> don't have to write exclusively about drugs; you've competed in this race
> three times. Why not write a diary about how it feels to go back?"
> "Because I'd rather write a diary about The Open." "You never played in
> The Open." "No, but I'm working on my handicap." "Think about it." "No."
>
> But, four weeks ago, a funny thing happened. I had been
> planning this bike ride in the Alps with my brothers and some friends for
> months. We caught a flight to Geneva, hired a mini-bus and drove south to
> Grenoble towards Gap. Grenoble used to be home during my time as a
> professional racer and as we drove through the suburbs and up the Côte de
> Laffrey, my mind started flooding with memories of what seems another
> life.
>
> "You know," I announced, "when I rode the Tour I was still with
> the leaders when we came up here in 1987."
>
> "You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour the stage was a
> little bit different to the one we're going to ride tomorrow."
>
> "You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour the race was 400
> kilometres longer and we had only one rest day."
>
> "You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour we were given just
> five pairs of shorts and five jerseys to get us through the three weeks
> and I had to hand-wash my kit after every second stage."
>
> It didn't take long before a white flag was raised. "Listen
> mate, no offence," my friend Harry announced. "But I think we'll have to
> restrict you to the number of times you can say 'When I rode the Tour'
> tomorrow."
>
> "Fair enough," I conceded. "How does a hundred sound?" Next
> morning everybody was buzzing as we pedalled out of Gap on a truly
> glorious day. Three hours later, sweating and exhausted, we crested the
> summit of the Col d'Izoard (2,360m), one of the Tour's most fabled climbs,
> and it was time for a break. Harry was once an amateur international but
> had never experienced anything like the Col d'Izoard.
>
> "Christ," he said, "that was brutal." And then he put his arm
> on my shoulder: "Listen, you can say 'When I rode the Tour' as much as you
> like from now on. Respect." The rest of the group nodded in approval:
> "Yeah, respect mate."
>
> I laughed and tried to brush it off but suddenly there was a
> lump in my throat and I felt deeply moved. It was the nicest thing anybody
> had ever said about my life as a professional cyclist; I had always been
> dismissed as a journeyman who was never any good.
>
> Suddenly, I was reminded that there is much more to the Tour
> than the race for the yellow jersey. And, at that moment, I knew I had to
> return................
>
>
>
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2252601,00.html
>
>
>
>
>
>

[B. Lafferty]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
. com...
> =====================================
> (A more-telling quote from the article referenced)-
> David, why should we treat anything you say with any credibility?" I
> asked.
> "Maybe I was wrong," he said.
>
> The press conference continued. He started lecturing again. "The sport was
> moving in the right direction," he insisted. "What's happened in Spain was
> fantastic," he said. "The organised schematic doping is being eradicated,"
> he said. "We need to get rid of the doctors," he said. And, finally, my
> favourite: "We have a responsibility as professional cyclists to convince
> the young guys coming through that it's possible to win without drugs."
>
> Nobody challenged him. There wasn't a single writer in the room who asked:
> "How would you know?" Furious, I raised my arm again. "David, you say that
> the Spanish (doping) affair is fantastic for the sport and for the future
> of the young kids coming into it . . . But that's exactly what was said in
> 1998 (after the Festina affair). And you were the young kid then . . .
>
> "Why should we believe anything you say? You have no credibility?" "At the
> moment I have no credibility . . . I've said it . . . You can't believe
> anything I say." "Thanks," I said. I just wanted to clarify that.
> ========================================
>
> I haven't read anything quite so bitter about a sport in quite some time.
> Particularly bothersome is the manner in which he goes on the attack with
> David Millar... if that exchange actually happened, it appears totally
> classless and unfortunate, putting the poor guy in a corner that he
> couldn't possibly hope to fight out of.

Classless? Real journalists have been called that and much worse before.
The "poor guy" put himself in the press room to answer questions and only
one reporter present had the guts to point out the white elephant in the
room.

>
> His total indictment is of *modern* cycling, as if he has some special
> credibility from racing in the mid-80s, when there were no doping issues.

There were doping issues back then. Kimmage did write a book called "A
Rough Ride" and he has reported on cycling and drugs on a consistent basis.

>
> Ignorance was bliss for him then, yet he feels quite differently about
> those in the sport now.

Kimmage was ignorant and niave as a young pro. Reality hit him rather
quickly as a pro.

>
> The article is definitely worth reading, if only because it may enlighten
> those who don't quite understand the world the original poster chooses to
> live in.

How simplistic of you. I would have though you capable of better.

>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
>
> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> The Sunday Times July 02, 2006
>>
>>
>> Cycling: Cycle of ambition
>> PAUL KIMMAGE
>>
>> In 1986 I rode the Tour de France as a wide-eyed 24-year-old.
>> Is there anybody like me in this year's peloton?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ::nobreak::For a long time now I've had this love/hate
>> relationship with the Tour de France. I love the event but I hate the
>> people who have destroyed it. And every summer a recurring battle rages
>> in my head . . .
>>
>> "I'm really looking forward to The Open." "You should go back
>> to the Tour." "I went to the Tour last year." "Yeah, you stayed for three
>> days and wrote a story about drugs. Why not cover the race from start to
>> finish?" "Three weeks?" "Yeah." "That's a lot of drugs stories." "You
>> don't have to write exclusively about drugs; you've competed in this race
>> three times. Why not write a diary about how it feels to go back?"
>> "Because I'd rather write a diary about The Open." "You never played in
>> The Open." "No, but I'm working on my handicap." "Think about it." "No."
>>
>> But, four weeks ago, a funny thing happened. I had been
>> planning this bike ride in the Alps with my brothers and some friends for
>> months. We caught a flight to Geneva, hired a mini-bus and drove south to
>> Grenoble towards Gap. Grenoble used to be home during my time as a
>> professional racer and as we drove through the suburbs and up the Côte de
>> Laffrey, my mind started flooding with memories of what seems another
>> life.
>>
>> "You know," I announced, "when I rode the Tour I was still
>> with the leaders when we came up here in 1987."
>>
>> "You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour the stage was a
>> little bit different to the one we're going to ride tomorrow."
>>
>> "You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour the race was 400
>> kilometres longer and we had only one rest day."
>>
>> "You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour we were given just
>> five pairs of shorts and five jerseys to get us through the three weeks
>> and I had to hand-wash my kit after every second stage."
>>
>> It didn't take long before a white flag was raised. "Listen
>> mate, no offence," my friend Harry announced. "But I think we'll have to
>> restrict you to the number of times you can say 'When I rode the Tour'
>> tomorrow."
>>
>> "Fair enough," I conceded. "How does a hundred sound?" Next
>> morning everybody was buzzing as we pedalled out of Gap on a truly
>> glorious day. Three hours later, sweating and exhausted, we crested the
>> summit of the Col d'Izoard (2,360m), one of the Tour's most fabled
>> climbs, and it was time for a break. Harry was once an amateur
>> international but had never experienced anything like the Col d'Izoard.
>>
>> "Christ," he said, "that was brutal." And then he put his arm
>> on my shoulder: "Listen, you can say 'When I rode the Tour' as much as
>> you like from now on. Respect." The rest of the group nodded in approval:
>> "Yeah, respect mate."
>>
>> I laughed and tried to brush it off but suddenly there was a
>> lump in my throat and I felt deeply moved. It was the nicest thing
>> anybody had ever said about my life as a professional cyclist; I had
>> always been dismissed as a journeyman who was never any good.
>>
>> Suddenly, I was reminded that there is much more to the Tour
>> than the race for the yellow jersey. And, at that moment, I knew I had to
>> return................
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2252601,00.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> The article is definitely worth reading, if only because it may enlighten
>> those who don't quite understand the world the original poster chooses to
>> live in.
>
> How simplistic of you. I would have though you capable of better.

William Ockham's way of looking at the world isn't a bad place to start
one's quest for answers.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> =====================================
>> (A more-telling quote from the article referenced)-
>> David, why should we treat anything you say with any credibility?" I
>> asked.
>> "Maybe I was wrong," he said.
>>
>> The press conference continued. He started lecturing again. "The sport
>> was moving in the right direction," he insisted. "What's happened in
>> Spain was fantastic," he said. "The organised schematic doping is being
>> eradicated," he said. "We need to get rid of the doctors," he said. And,
>> finally, my favourite: "We have a responsibility as professional cyclists
>> to convince the young guys coming through that it's possible to win
>> without drugs."
>>
>> Nobody challenged him. There wasn't a single writer in the room who
>> asked: "How would you know?" Furious, I raised my arm again. "David, you
>> say that the Spanish (doping) affair is fantastic for the sport and for
>> the future of the young kids coming into it . . . But that's exactly what
>> was said in 1998 (after the Festina affair). And you were the young kid
>> then . . .
>>
>> "Why should we believe anything you say? You have no credibility?" "At
>> the moment I have no credibility . . . I've said it . . . You can't
>> believe anything I say." "Thanks," I said. I just wanted to clarify that.
>> ========================================
>>
>> I haven't read anything quite so bitter about a sport in quite some time.
>> Particularly bothersome is the manner in which he goes on the attack with
>> David Millar... if that exchange actually happened, it appears totally
>> classless and unfortunate, putting the poor guy in a corner that he
>> couldn't possibly hope to fight out of.
>
> Classless? Real journalists have been called that and much worse before.
> The "poor guy" put himself in the press room to answer questions and only
> one reporter present had the guts to point out the white elephant in the
> room.
>
>>
>> His total indictment is of *modern* cycling, as if he has some special
>> credibility from racing in the mid-80s, when there were no doping issues.
>
> There were doping issues back then. Kimmage did write a book called "A
> Rough Ride" and he has reported on cycling and drugs on a consistent
> basis.
>
>>
>> Ignorance was bliss for him then, yet he feels quite differently about
>> those in the sport now.
>
> Kimmage was ignorant and niave as a young pro. Reality hit him rather
> quickly as a pro.
>
>>
>> The article is definitely worth reading, if only because it may enlighten
>> those who don't quite understand the world the original poster chooses to
>> live in.
>
> How simplistic of you. I would have though you capable of better.
>
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>>
>>
>> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>> The Sunday Times July 02, 2006
>>>
>>>
>>> Cycling: Cycle of ambition
>>> PAUL KIMMAGE
>>>
>>> In 1986 I rode the Tour de France as a wide-eyed 24-year-old.
>>> Is there anybody like me in this year's peloton?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ::nobreak::For a long time now I've had this love/hate
>>> relationship with the Tour de France. I love the event but I hate the
>>> people who have destroyed it. And every summer a recurring battle rages
>>> in my head . . .
>>>
>>> "I'm really looking forward to The Open." "You should go back
>>> to the Tour." "I went to the Tour last year." "Yeah, you stayed for
>>> three days and wrote a story about drugs. Why not cover the race from
>>> start to finish?" "Three weeks?" "Yeah." "That's a lot of drugs
>>> stories." "You don't have to write exclusively about drugs; you've
>>> competed in this race three times. Why not write a diary about how it
>>> feels to go back?" "Because I'd rather write a diary about The Open."
>>> "You never played in The Open." "No, but I'm working on my handicap."
>>> "Think about it." "No."
>>>
>>> But, four weeks ago, a funny thing happened. I had been
>>> planning this bike ride in the Alps with my brothers and some friends
>>> for months. We caught a flight to Geneva, hired a mini-bus and drove
>>> south to Grenoble towards Gap. Grenoble used to be home during my time
>>> as a professional racer and as we drove through the suburbs and up the
>>> Côte de Laffrey, my mind started flooding with memories of what seems
>>> another life.
>>>
>>> "You know," I announced, "when I rode the Tour I was still
>>> with the leaders when we came up here in 1987."
>>>
>>> "You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour the stage was a
>>> little bit different to the one we're going to ride tomorrow."
>>>
>>> "You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour the race was 400
>>> kilometres longer and we had only one rest day."
>>>
>>> "You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour we were given just
>>> five pairs of shorts and five jerseys to get us through the three weeks
>>> and I had to hand-wash my kit after every second stage."
>>>
>>> It didn't take long before a white flag was raised. "Listen
>>> mate, no offence," my friend Harry announced. "But I think we'll have to
>>> restrict you to the number of times you can say 'When I rode the Tour'
>>> tomorrow."
>>>
>>> "Fair enough," I conceded. "How does a hundred sound?" Next
>>> morning everybody was buzzing as we pedalled out of Gap on a truly
>>> glorious day. Three hours later, sweating and exhausted, we crested the
>>> summit of the Col d'Izoard (2,360m), one of the Tour's most fabled
>>> climbs, and it was time for a break. Harry was once an amateur
>>> international but had never experienced anything like the Col d'Izoard.
>>>
>>> "Christ," he said, "that was brutal." And then he put his arm
>>> on my shoulder: "Listen, you can say 'When I rode the Tour' as much as
>>> you like from now on. Respect." The rest of the group nodded in
>>> approval: "Yeah, respect mate."
>>>
>>> I laughed and tried to brush it off but suddenly there was a
>>> lump in my throat and I felt deeply moved. It was the nicest thing
>>> anybody had ever said about my life as a professional cyclist; I had
>>> always been dismissed as a journeyman who was never any good.
>>>
>>> Suddenly, I was reminded that there is much more to the Tour
>>> than the race for the yellow jersey. And, at that moment, I knew I had
>>> to return................
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2252601,00.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[B. Lafferty]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
.com...
>>> The article is definitely worth reading, if only because it may
>>> enlighten those who don't quite understand the world the original poster
>>> chooses to live in.
>>
>> How simplistic of you. I would have though you capable of better.
>
> William Ockham's way of looking at the world isn't a bad place to start
> one's quest for answers.

William would probably **** in his pants from laughter if he saw your post.

>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[[email protected]]

B. Lafferty wrote:
: by PAUL KIMMAGE
: Grenoble used to be home during my time as a professional
racer
: and as we drove through the suburbs and up the Côte de Lafferty, my
mind
: started flooding with memories of what seems another life.

Hmm, this explains a lot.

> I laughed and tried to brush it off but suddenly there was a
> lump in my throat and I felt deeply moved. It was the nicest thing anybody
> had ever said about my life as a professional cyclist; I had always been
> dismissed as a journeyman who was never any good. ...
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2252601,00.html

Probably few people ever despised Paul Kimmage as much
as he thinks. This series is rather a lot about Paul Kimmage
as much as today's Tour - even his quest is for a Tour rider
who reminds him of ... Paul Kimmage.

Hacking David Millar off is no great feat of truth-telling, especially
since Millar was hardly verbally agile even before he was busted
and disgusted. If Kimmage stops worrying about hacks in the
pressroom and what people think of Paul Kimmage, he could
bring an interesting perspective; I hope this series winds up
being of interest to the readers as well as to Paul Kimmage's
therapist.

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> The article is definitely worth reading, if only because it may enlighten
>> those who don't quite understand the world the original poster chooses to
>> live in.
>
> How simplistic of you. I would have though you capable of better.

Actually, that does deserve a better answer than my original reply. In all
seriousness, your views and the authors', and the way they're expressed, are
amazingly similar. In the case of the author (Paul Kimmage), we have the
benefit of understanding, to some extent, how his views came to be. We learn
about his background and experiences, and from that get a better idea for
why he would question (a very kind way to put it) David Millar in the manner
he did.

Somewhere between Mr. Kimmel's challenges and those who would pretend that
none of this matters is a middle ground that is not all that bad a place to
be. But it's not nearly as fun a place to be because there are shades of
gray, with the possibility that things might not be quite what they appear,
so you can't feel so comfortable climbing upon soap boxes, telling the world
that you are right and they are wrong.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

[B. Lafferty]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
.com...
>>> The article is definitely worth reading, if only because it may
>>> enlighten those who don't quite understand the world the original poster
>>> chooses to live in.
>>
>> How simplistic of you. I would have though you capable of better.
>
> Actually, that does deserve a better answer than my original reply. In all
> seriousness, your views and the authors', and the way they're expressed,
> are amazingly similar. In the case of the author (Paul Kimmage), we have
> the benefit of understanding, to some extent, how his views came to be. We
> learn about his background and experiences, and from that get a better
> idea for why he would question (a very kind way to put it) David Millar in
> the manner he did.
>
> Somewhere between Mr. Kimmel's challenges and those who would pretend that
> none of this matters is a middle ground that is not all that bad a place
> to be. But it's not nearly as fun a place to be because there are shades
> of gray, with the possibility that things might not be quite what they
> appear, so you can't feel so comfortable climbing upon soap boxes, telling
> the world that you are right and they are wrong.

And you know, I've been right about the doping as a major problem despite
omerta and heads in the sand. Thanks!

[B. Lafferty]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
B. Lafferty wrote:
: by PAUL KIMMAGE
: Grenoble used to be home during my time as a professional
racer
: and as we drove through the suburbs and up the Côte de Lafferty, my
mind
: started flooding with memories of what seems another life.

Hmm, this explains a lot.

> I laughed and tried to brush it off but suddenly there was a
> lump in my throat and I felt deeply moved. It was the nicest thing anybody
> had ever said about my life as a professional cyclist; I had always been
> dismissed as a journeyman who was never any good. ...
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2252601,00.html

Probably few people ever despised Paul Kimmage as much
as he thinks. This series is rather a lot about Paul Kimmage
as much as today's Tour - even his quest is for a Tour rider
who reminds him of ... Paul Kimmage.

It's an interesting angle considering he states that he has no interest in
who wins the Tour.

Hacking David Millar off is no great feat of truth-telling, especially
since Millar was hardly verbally agile even before he was busted
and disgusted. If Kimmage stops worrying about hacks in the
pressroom and what people think of Paul Kimmage, he could
bring an interesting perspective; I hope this series winds up
being of interest to the readers as well as to Paul Kimmage's
therapist.

To put some perspective on it, Kimmage was attacked by everyone in the
sport -riders, managers, journalists- after publishing A Rough Ride. People
like Fignon and Stephen Roche literally turned their backs on him when he
visited the Tour. I doubt that he's "worried" about the cycling hacks in
the press room. Interesting that the hacks were trying to minimize the
fallout from Spain right up until the **** really hit the fan. Same ****,
different year, eh?

[Tim Lines]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
> .com...
>
>>>>The article is definitely worth reading, if only because it may
>>>>enlighten those who don't quite understand the world the original poster
>>>>chooses to live in.
>>>
>>>How simplistic of you. I would have though you capable of better.
>>
>>Actually, that does deserve a better answer than my original reply. In all
>>seriousness, your views and the authors', and the way they're expressed,
>>are amazingly similar. In the case of the author (Paul Kimmage), we have
>>the benefit of understanding, to some extent, how his views came to be. We
>>learn about his background and experiences, and from that get a better
>>idea for why he would question (a very kind way to put it) David Millar in
>>the manner he did.
>>
>>Somewhere between Mr. Kimmel's challenges and those who would pretend that
>>none of this matters is a middle ground that is not all that bad a place
>>to be. But it's not nearly as fun a place to be because there are shades
>>of gray, with the possibility that things might not be quite what they
>>appear, so you can't feel so comfortable climbing upon soap boxes, telling
>>the world that you are right and they are wrong.
>
>
> And you know, I've been right about the doping as a major problem despite
> omerta and heads in the sand. Thanks!

How simplistic of you.

[B. Lafferty]

"Tim Lines" > wrote in message
. ..
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> "Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
>> .com...
>>
>>>>>The article is definitely worth reading, if only because it may
>>>>>enlighten those who don't quite understand the world the original
>>>>>poster chooses to live in.
>>>>
>>>>How simplistic of you. I would have though you capable of better.
>>>
>>>Actually, that does deserve a better answer than my original reply. In
>>>all seriousness, your views and the authors', and the way they're
>>>expressed, are amazingly similar. In the case of the author (Paul
>>>Kimmage), we have the benefit of understanding, to some extent, how his
>>>views came to be. We learn about his background and experiences, and from
>>>that get a better idea for why he would question (a very kind way to put
>>>it) David Millar in the manner he did.
>>>
>>>Somewhere between Mr. Kimmel's challenges and those who would pretend
>>>that none of this matters is a middle ground that is not all that bad a
>>>place to be. But it's not nearly as fun a place to be because there are
>>>shades of gray, with the possibility that things might not be quite what
>>>they appear, so you can't feel so comfortable climbing upon soap boxes,
>>>telling the world that you are right and they are wrong.
>>
>>
>> And you know, I've been right about the doping as a major problem despite
>> omerta and heads in the sand. Thanks!
>
> How simplistic of you.

You have all the originality of a parrot.

[Tim Lines]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Tim Lines" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>>"Mike Jacoubowsky" > wrote in message
.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>The article is definitely worth reading, if only because it may
>>>>>>enlighten those who don't quite understand the world the original
>>>>>>poster chooses to live in.
>>>>>
>>>>>How simplistic of you. I would have though you capable of better.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, that does deserve a better answer than my original reply. In
>>>>all seriousness, your views and the authors', and the way they're
>>>>expressed, are amazingly similar. In the case of the author (Paul
>>>>Kimmage), we have the benefit of understanding, to some extent, how his
>>>>views came to be. We learn about his background and experiences, and from
>>>>that get a better idea for why he would question (a very kind way to put
>>>>it) David Millar in the manner he did.
>>>>
>>>>Somewhere between Mr. Kimmel's challenges and those who would pretend
>>>>that none of this matters is a middle ground that is not all that bad a
>>>>place to be. But it's not nearly as fun a place to be because there are
>>>>shades of gray, with the possibility that things might not be quite what
>>>>they appear, so you can't feel so comfortable climbing upon soap boxes,
>>>>telling the world that you are right and they are wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>And you know, I've been right about the doping as a major problem despite
>>>omerta and heads in the sand. Thanks!
>>
>>How simplistic of you.
>
>
> You have all the originality of a parrot.
>
>
That's very funny, coming from you.

[mal]

"B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Classless? Real journalists have been called that and much worse before.
> The "poor guy" put himself in the press room to answer questions and only
> one reporter present had the guts to point out the white elephant in the
> room.

It's actually just an ordinary coloured elephant.

I white elephant is like the NO dome with no one to buy tickets. Or the
Millenium Dome in London, where no one wants to buy tickets. It comes from
the term "White Elephant Sale", where you off load all the crap you can't
sell at full price. Not really like a yard sale, where you just off load all
your crap.

[Dave Clary]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 06:31:28 -0400, "mal" >
wrote:

>
>
>I white elephant is like the NO dome with no one to buy tickets.

I believe they just set a record for season ticket sales in NO. I
venture to say that the majority of folks who attend are from outside
of Orleans parish.

Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
Home: http://davidclary.com

[RonSonic]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 06:31:28 -0400, "mal" > wrote:

>
>"B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>> Classless? Real journalists have been called that and much worse before.
>> The "poor guy" put himself in the press room to answer questions and only
>> one reporter present had the guts to point out the white elephant in the
>> room.
>
>It's actually just an ordinary coloured elephant.
>
>I white elephant is like the NO dome with no one to buy tickets. Or the
>Millenium Dome in London, where no one wants to buy tickets. It comes from
>the term "White Elephant Sale", where you off load all the crap you can't
>sell at full price. Not really like a yard sale, where you just off load all
>your crap.

Which comes from white elephant, a most sacred, honorable thing in Hindu culture
costing a vast fortune to maintain and keep in a proper style. It was typical
among the Indian aristocracy to make a gift of a white elephant to an uppity
young fellow to absorb all of his resources.

Ron

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 06:16:04 -0500, Dave Clary >
wrote:

>On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 06:31:28 -0400, "mal" >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I white elephant is like the NO dome with no one to buy tickets.
>
>I believe they just set a record for season ticket sales in NO. I
>venture to say that the majority of folks who attend are from outside
>of Orleans parish.
>
>Dave Clary/Corpus Christi, Tx
>Home: http://davidclary.com

Damn, Dave, where have you been? Its not like you've been moving
around the country over the last decade, unless you really like Corpus
Christi in your tag line. Last I heard, you had given up playing wind
tag with the trucks in your streamliner, and that was a while ago.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Allez1]

"mal" > wrote in message
...
>
> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> Classless? Real journalists have been called that and much worse before.
>> The "poor guy" put himself in the press room to answer questions and only
>> one reporter present had the guts to point out the white elephant in the
>> room.
>
> It's actually just an ordinary coloured elephant.
>
> I white elephant is like the NO dome with no one to buy tickets. Or the
> Millenium Dome in London, where no one wants to buy tickets. It comes from
> the term "White Elephant Sale", where you off load all the crap you can't
> sell at full price. Not really like a yard sale, where you just off load
> all your crap.

A white elephant featured in the birth my of the Buddha. Just prior to
giving birth to the Buddha, his mother has a dream in which a white elephant
comes to her with the gift of a lotus flower. Even older is Ganesh in
Hinduism.

[Stu Fleming]

Dave Clary wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 06:31:28 -0400, "mal" >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I white elephant is like the NO dome with no one to buy tickets.
>
>
> I believe they just set a record for season ticket sales in NO. I
> venture to say that the majority of folks who attend are from outside
> of Orleans parish.

Dude, that was probably FEMA getting ready for the real season.

[[email protected]]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> Damn, Dave, where have you been? Its not like you've been moving
> around the country over the last decade, unless you really like Corpus
> Christi in your tag line. Last I heard, you had given up playing wind
> tag with the trucks in your streamliner, and that was a while ago.

Hi Curtis! Still hanging in Corpus and lurking on and off in rbr. I'm
still cycling three times a week but it's in the safe confines of a
fitness center away from the asshole CC drivers that put in ditches
three times! Now I just ride to please the Polar HRM and pretend to
win my virtual four and fifth tours (TIOOYK) on my LeMond RevMaster!
:-)

Dave
..sigless on Google

[[email protected]]

Kimmage has no credibility either, as he tolerated the doping he saw,
participated in the doping himself, and then kept a lid on it all until
he published a book about it (after his retirement).

I can understand him being a cycling journalist on the merits of his
pro career, but he has no right to criticze anyone else on the topic of
cheating, as he himself had the opportunity to expose it (and chose not
to).




B. Lafferty wrote:
> The Sunday Times July 02, 2006
>
>
> Cycling: Cycle of ambition
> PAUL KIMMAGE
>
> In 1986 I rode the Tour de France as a wide-eyed 24-year-old.Is
> there anybody like me in this year's peloton?
>
>
>
>
> ::nobreak::For a long time now I've had this love/hate
> relationship with the Tour de France. I love the event but I hate the people
> who have destroyed it. And every summer a recurring battle rages in my head
> . . .
>
> "I'm really looking forward to The Open." "You should go backto
> the Tour." "I went to the Tour last year." "Yeah, you stayed for three days
> and wrote a story about drugs. Why not cover the race from start to finish?"
> "Three weeks?" "Yeah." "That's a lot of drugs stories." "You don't have to
> write exclusively about drugs; you've competed in this race three times. Why
> not write a diary about how it feels to go back?" "Because I'd rather write
> a diary about The Open." "You never played in The Open." "No, but I'm
> working on my handicap." "Think about it." "No."
>
> But, four weeks ago, a funny thing happened. I had been planning
> this bike ride in the Alps with my brothers and some friends for months. We
> caught a flight to Geneva, hired a mini-bus and drove south to Grenoble
> towards Gap. Grenoble used to be home during my time as a professional racer
> and as we drove through the suburbs and up the Côte de Laffrey, my mind
> started flooding with memories of what seems another life.
>
> "You know," I announced, "when I rode the Tour I was still with
> the leaders when we came up here in 1987."
>
> "You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour the stage was a little
> bit different to the one we're going to ride tomorrow."
>
> "You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour the race was 400
> kilometres longer and we had only one rest day."
>
> "You know," I said, "when I rode the Tour we were given just
> five pairs of shorts and five jerseys to get us through the three weeks and
> I had to hand-wash my kit after every second stage."
>
> It didn't take long before a white flag was raised. "Listen
> mate, no offence," my friend Harry announced. "But I think we'll have to
> restrict you to the number of times you can say 'When I rode the Tour'
> tomorrow."
>
> "Fair enough," I conceded. "How does a hundred sound?" Next
> morning everybody was buzzing as we pedalled out of Gap on a truly glorious
> day. Three hours later, sweating and exhausted, we crested the summit of the
> Col d'Izoard (2,360m), one of the Tour's most fabled climbs, and it was time
> for a break. Harry was once an amateur international but had never
> experienced anything like the Col d'Izoard.
>
> "Christ," he said, "that was brutal." And then he put his armon
> my shoulder: "Listen, you can say 'When I rode the Tour' as much as you like
> from now on. Respect." The rest of the group nodded in approval: "Yeah,
> respect mate."
>
> I laughed and tried to brush it off but suddenly there was a
> lump in my throat and I felt deeply moved. It was the nicest thing anybody
> had ever said about my life as a professional cyclist; I had always been
> dismissed as a journeyman who was never any good.
>
> Suddenly, I was reminded that there is much more to the Tour
> than the race for the yellow jersey. And, at that moment, I knew I had to
> return................
>
>
>
>
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2252601,00.html
>
>
>
>
>
> begin 666 trans.gif
> M1TE&.#EA`0`!`)$"````,P```/___P```"'Y! $```(`+ `````!``$`0 ("
> $5 $`.P``
> `
> end

[Kyle Legate]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2006 06:31:28 -0400, "mal" > wrote:
>
>
>>"B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>>>Classless? Real journalists have been called that and much worse before.
>>>The "poor guy" put himself in the press room to answer questions and only
>>>one reporter present had the guts to point out the white elephant in the
>>>room.
>>
>>It's actually just an ordinary coloured elephant.
>>
>>I white elephant is like the NO dome with no one to buy tickets. Or the
>>Millenium Dome in London, where no one wants to buy tickets. It comes from
>>the term "White Elephant Sale", where you off load all the crap you can't
>>sell at full price. Not really like a yard sale, where you just off load all
>>your crap.
>
>
> Which comes from white elephant, a most sacred, honorable thing in Hindu culture
> costing a vast fortune to maintain and keep in a proper style. It was typical
> among the Indian aristocracy to make a gift of a white elephant to an uppity
> young fellow to absorb all of his resources.
>
> Ron
This is why I love rbr, it's a veritable mini-wiki of arcane knowledge.
Thanks Ron.

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
"mal" > wrote:

> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > Classless? Real journalists have been called that and much worse before.
> > The "poor guy" put himself in the press room to answer questions and only
> > one reporter present had the guts to point out the white elephant in the
> > room.
>
> It's actually just an ordinary coloured elephant.
>
> I white elephant is like the NO dome with no one to buy tickets. Or the
> Millenium Dome in London, where no one wants to buy tickets. It comes from
> the term "White Elephant Sale", where you off load all the crap you can't
> sell at full price. Not really like a yard sale, where you just off load all
> your crap.

No, it comes from the statues of white elephants in
D.*W.*Griffiths movie _Intolerance_. He built an immense
set to depict Babylon. Once filming completed it moldered
on the back lots.

<http://www.gildasattic.com/Intolerance.html>

The white elephants are on pedestals above.

--
Michael Press

[Donald Munro]

Kyle Legate wrote:
> This is why I love rbr, it's a veritable mini-wiki of arcane knowledge.

A randomized mixture of 1% knowledge and 99% whale****.

[Robert Chung]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> I've been right about the doping as a major problem

Hmmm. Neither part of that sentence seems clear to me.

[Robert Chung]

B. Lafferty wrote:

> To put some perspective on it, Kimmage was attacked by everyone in the
> sport -riders, managers, journalists- after publishing A Rough Ride.
> People like Fignon and Stephen Roche literally turned their backs on
> him when he visited the Tour.

So are you going to post a message asking for additions to your list of
"ex-friends and colleagues of Kimmage who have turned against him"?

[Robert Chung]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> =====================================
> (A more-telling quote from the article referenced)-

> "Why should we believe anything you say? You have no credibility?" "At
> the moment I have no credibility . . . I've said it . . . You can't
> believe anything I say." "Thanks," I said. I just wanted to clarify
> that. ========================================

Shorter Kimmage: I, an admitted doper, am the only one who has the
crediblity to show that that admitted doper has no credibility.

[[email protected]]

B. Lafferty wrote:

> >
> > Ignorance was bliss for him then, yet he feels quite differently about
> > those in the sport now.
>
> Kimmage was ignorant and niave as a young pro. Reality hit him rather
> quickly as a pro.
>
> >
> > The article is definitely worth reading, if only because it may enlighten
> > those who don't quite understand the world the original poster chooses to
> > live in.
>
> How simplistic of you. I would have though you capable of better.
>

Mr Lafferty,

Kimmage had the chance to "name names" before he retired from cycling,
before he wrote his book, and then again IN his book. He only chose to
discuss the existence of the drugs and talk about how pervasive they
are, yet even when given the opportunity to drectly confront the issue,
he runs away.

And yet, with Millar, he talks as if he is some moralist on the topic
of drugs. Millar may have used EPO, but perhaps during his fantastic
rides, we was not high an speed (as was Kimmage).

[Bret]

Robert Chung wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > =====================================
> > (A more-telling quote from the article referenced)-
>
> > "Why should we believe anything you say? You have no credibility?" "At
> > the moment I have no credibility . . . I've said it . . . You can't
> > believe anything I say." "Thanks," I said. I just wanted to clarify
> > that. ========================================
>
> Shorter Kimmage: I, an admitted doper, am the only one who has the
> crediblity to show that that admitted doper has no credibility.

Kimmage does have the moral advantage that he's an admitted doper
without having been caught first. I don't agree with his treatment of
Millar, but you can't equate the two.

Who else in the modern has admitted doping without being accused first?

Bret

[Robert Chung]

Bret wrote:
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> =====================================
>>> (A more-telling quote from the article referenced)-
>>
>>> "Why should we believe anything you say? You have no credibility?" "At
>>> the moment I have no credibility . . . I've said it . . . You can't
>>> believe anything I say." "Thanks," I said. I just wanted to clarify
>>> that. ========================================
>>
>> Shorter Kimmage: I, an admitted doper, am the only one who has the
>> crediblity to show that that admitted doper has no credibility.
>
> Kimmage does have the moral advantage that he's an admitted doper
> without having been caught first. I don't agree with his treatment of
> Millar, but you can't equate the two.
>
> Who else in the modern has admitted doping without being accused first?
>
> Bret

You're saying that his moral authority is based on the thoroughness with
which others were looking at the time when he was doping?

[B. Lafferty]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Ignorance was bliss for him then, yet he feels quite differently about
>> > those in the sport now.
>>
>> Kimmage was ignorant and niave as a young pro. Reality hit him rather
>> quickly as a pro.
>>
>> >
>> > The article is definitely worth reading, if only because it may
>> > enlighten
>> > those who don't quite understand the world the original poster chooses
>> > to
>> > live in.
>>
>> How simplistic of you. I would have though you capable of better.
>>
>
> Mr Lafferty,
>
> Kimmage had the chance to "name names" before he retired from cycling,
> before he wrote his book, and then again IN his book. He only chose to
> discuss the existence of the drugs and talk about how pervasive they
> are, yet even when given the opportunity to drectly confront the issue,
> he runs away.
>
> And yet, with Millar, he talks as if he is some moralist on the topic
> of drugs. Millar may have used EPO, but perhaps during his fantastic
> rides, we was not high an speed (as was Kimmage).
>
Consider that with the very pro-plaintiff libel laws in the UK, naming names
isn't always the best policy. If you will recall, when Willie Voet's book
came out in English, UK lawyers made him take out virtually all the names.
It was published in either Belgium or France with the names.

[Kyle Legate]

Donald Munro wrote:
> Kyle Legate wrote:
>
>>This is why I love rbr, it's a veritable mini-wiki of arcane knowledge.
>
>
> A randomized mixture of 1% knowledge and 99% whale****.
>
>
>
And a sense of satisfied accomplishment when I recognise that 1%.

[Bret]

Robert Chung wrote:
> Bret wrote:
> > Robert Chung wrote:
> >> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> >>> =====================================
> >>> (A more-telling quote from the article referenced)-
> >>
> >>> "Why should we believe anything you say? You have no credibility?" "At
> >>> the moment I have no credibility . . . I've said it . . . You can't
> >>> believe anything I say." "Thanks," I said. I just wanted to clarify
> >>> that. ========================================
> >>
> >> Shorter Kimmage: I, an admitted doper, am the only one who has the
> >> crediblity to show that that admitted doper has no credibility.
> >
> > Kimmage does have the moral advantage that he's an admitted doper
> > without having been caught first. I don't agree with his treatment of
> > Millar, but you can't equate the two.
> >
> > Who else in the modern has admitted doping without being accused first?
> >
> > Bret
>
> You're saying that his moral authority is based on the thoroughness with
> which others were looking at the time when he was doping?

No, I'm saying that he deserves some credit for outing himself. It's
like the comparing Jim Bouton to Barry Bonds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_Four

Bret

[Simon Brooke]

in message . com>, Bret
') wrote:

> Who else in the modern has admitted doping without being accused first?

Who else in the modern era has not bee accused?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; may contain traces of nuts, bolts or washers.

[B. Lafferty]

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message . com>, Bret
> ') wrote:
>
>> Who else in the modern has admitted doping without being accused first?
>
> Who else in the modern era has not bee accused?

Charlie Motet (sp?)?

>
> --
> (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> ;; may contain traces of nuts, bolts or washers.

[Robert Chung]

Bret wrote:

>> You're saying that his moral authority is based on the thoroughness
>> with which others were looking at the time when he was doping?
>
> No, I'm saying that he deserves some credit for outing himself. It's
> like the comparing Jim Bouton to Barry Bonds.

There are at least a few problems with your assertion. First, AFAIK, Bonds
hasn't yet outed himself, so your analogy doesn't work.

Second, it's not at all clear to me that those who come to a revelation by
themselves have so much extra moral credit to spare that they can denounce
those who come to a revelation with help as being less pure.

But third, let's abstract this a bit. Guy 1 does some action in the past
that he regrets and announces he's turned a new leaf. Guy 2 does that same
action in the past but was caught, regrets his action, and announces he's
turned a new leaf. Guy 3 does some action in the past, thinks deeply about
it, and is unrepentant. Now, without knowing what the action was, can you
say that Guy 1 always has the moral advantage?

I've never raced while doped at all. Do I have moral advantage over
Kimmage?

[Bret]

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message . com>, Bret
> ') wrote:
>
> > Who else in the modern has admitted doping without being accused first?
>
> Who else in the modern era has not bee accused?

I meant specifically accused. But since you ask, Andy Hampsten and as
Brian said, Charely Mottet. And then there is Christophe Bassons.

Bret

[Bret]

Robert Chung wrote:
> Bret wrote:
>
> >> You're saying that his moral authority is based on the thoroughness
> >> with which others were looking at the time when he was doping?
> >
> > No, I'm saying that he deserves some credit for outing himself. It's
> > like the comparing Jim Bouton to Barry Bonds.
>
> There are at least a few problems with your assertion. First, AFAIK, Bonds
> hasn't yet outed himself, so your analogy doesn't work.

I meant Bouton of course. Here's a reference:
http://espn.go.com/page2/s/questions/bouton.html

Whenever you say something stupid in response to one of my posts, I
usually assume that you're just being clever at my expense. You're now
on probation.

> Second, it's not at all clear to me that those who come to a revelation by
> themselves have so much extra moral credit to spare that they can denounce
> those who come to a revelation with help as being less pure.

I said that I didn't agree with the denunciation. I was speaking only
to your attempt to equate the two morally.

> But third, let's abstract this a bit. Guy 1 does some action in the past
> that he regrets and announces he's turned a new leaf. Guy 2 does that same
> action in the past but was caught, regrets his action, and announces he's
> turned a new leaf. Guy 3 does some action in the past, thinks deeply about
> it, and is unrepentant. Now, without knowing what the action was, can you
> say that Guy 1 always has the moral advantage?

On the surface yes, but you'd have to understand the motivations to
know for sure. I do believe that many activists do good work for noble
causes but for the wrong reasons.

>
> I've never raced while doped at all. Do I have moral advantage over
> Kimmage?

Not a chance. You're still on probation.

Bret

[B. Lafferty]

"Bret" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Chung wrote:
>> Bret wrote:
>>
>> >> You're saying that his moral authority is based on the thoroughness
>> >> with which others were looking at the time when he was doping?
>> >
>> > No, I'm saying that he deserves some credit for outing himself. It's
>> > like the comparing Jim Bouton to Barry Bonds.
>>
>> There are at least a few problems with your assertion. First, AFAIK,
>> Bonds
>> hasn't yet outed himself, so your analogy doesn't work.
>
> I meant Bouton of course. Here's a reference:
> http://espn.go.com/page2/s/questions/bouton.html
>
> Whenever you say something stupid in response to one of my posts, I
> usually assume that you're just being clever at my expense. You're now
> on probation.
>
>> Second, it's not at all clear to me that those who come to a revelation
>> by
>> themselves have so much extra moral credit to spare that they can
>> denounce
>> those who come to a revelation with help as being less pure.
>
> I said that I didn't agree with the denunciation. I was speaking only
> to your attempt to equate the two morally.
>
>> But third, let's abstract this a bit. Guy 1 does some action in the past
>> that he regrets and announces he's turned a new leaf. Guy 2 does that
>> same
>> action in the past but was caught, regrets his action, and announces he's
>> turned a new leaf. Guy 3 does some action in the past, thinks deeply
>> about
>> it, and is unrepentant. Now, without knowing what the action was, can you
>> say that Guy 1 always has the moral advantage?
>
> On the surface yes, but you'd have to understand the motivations to
> know for sure. I do believe that many activists do good work for noble
> causes but for the wrong reasons.
>
>>
>> I've never raced while doped at all. Do I have moral advantage over
>> Kimmage?
>
> Not a chance. You're still on probation.

Does that mean he's subject to random dope tests and unannounced searches of
his home? ;-)

>
> Bret
>

[Bret]

B. Lafferty wrote:
> "Bret" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Robert Chung wrote:
> >> Bret wrote:
> >>
> >> >> You're saying that his moral authority is based on the thoroughness
> >> >> with which others were looking at the time when he was doping?
> >> >
> >> > No, I'm saying that he deserves some credit for outing himself. It's
> >> > like the comparing Jim Bouton to Barry Bonds.
> >>
> >> There are at least a few problems with your assertion. First, AFAIK,
> >> Bonds
> >> hasn't yet outed himself, so your analogy doesn't work.
> >
> > I meant Bouton of course. Here's a reference:
> > http://espn.go.com/page2/s/questions/bouton.html
> >
> > Whenever you say something stupid in response to one of my posts, I
> > usually assume that you're just being clever at my expense. You're now
> > on probation.
> >
> >> Second, it's not at all clear to me that those who come to a revelation
> >> by
> >> themselves have so much extra moral credit to spare that they can
> >> denounce
> >> those who come to a revelation with help as being less pure.
> >
> > I said that I didn't agree with the denunciation. I was speaking only
> > to your attempt to equate the two morally.
> >
> >> But third, let's abstract this a bit. Guy 1 does some action in the past
> >> that he regrets and announces he's turned a new leaf. Guy 2 does that
> >> same
> >> action in the past but was caught, regrets his action, and announces he's
> >> turned a new leaf. Guy 3 does some action in the past, thinks deeply
> >> about
> >> it, and is unrepentant. Now, without knowing what the action was, can you
> >> say that Guy 1 always has the moral advantage?
> >
> > On the surface yes, but you'd have to understand the motivations to
> > know for sure. I do believe that many activists do good work for noble
> > causes but for the wrong reasons.
> >
> >>
> >> I've never raced while doped at all. Do I have moral advantage over
> >> Kimmage?
> >
> > Not a chance. You're still on probation.
>
> Does that mean he's subject to random dope tests and unannounced searches of
> his home? ;-)

Yes. I would support that. For his own good of course.

Bret

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 4 Jul 2006 18:55:06 -0700, "Bret" > wrote:

>
>Simon Brooke wrote:
>> in message . com>, Bret
>> ') wrote:
>>
>> > Who else in the modern has admitted doping without being accused first?
>>
>> Who else in the modern era has not bee accused?
>
>I meant specifically accused. But since you ask, Andy Hampsten and as
>Brian said, Charely Mottet. And then there is Christophe Bassons.

Also Giles Delion.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

[[email protected]]

Bret wrote:

> Bonds was a weak choice since he hasn't admitted the drug use. Jason
> Grimsley would have been better.
>
> Kimmage::Millar as Bouton::Grimsley

Ed Grimley used performance enhancing drugs??!!!

> > BTW, I appreciate the references to Bouton, but I read "Ball Four" when I
> > was supposed to be too young to read "Ball Four."

Me too. Weird. So that's how one winds up on RBR.

> > Actually, I wasn't equating the two morally. You're the one who thinks
> > that Kimmage has a moral advantage on Millar. I don't think that
> > credibility is necessarily predicated on moral advantage, or that moral
> > advantage is conferred by avoiding getting caught.
>
> Alright then, you have equated the two wrt credibility not morality. I
> think the person who admits their sins without provocation is more
> credible than one who did so only after being caught. The fact that
> both Kimmage and Bouton were using the confessions to sell books does
> take away from that.

IMHO, Kimmage probably does have more credibility than
Millar. I don't know either and can't speak to their morality.

My problem with the original exchange was that Kimmage wasn't
doing anything more interesting than saying "I have more credibility
than you, David." No additional information was obtained or
conveyed to the reader.

Kimmage's position and experience might have allowed him to talk
to riders in a way that would have gotten something useful, even if
it was just their motivations, rationalizations, where they got the
dope
(Doctor? Soigneur? Do we even know for Millar?) But he's only,
so far, asked questions where he knows what answer he'll get.

[Robert Chung]

Bret wrote:

> Alright then, you have equated the two wrt credibility not morality. I
> think the person who admits their sins without provocation is more
> credible than one who did so only after being caught.

Hmmm. That's an interesting theory of redemption you've got there.

[Donald Munro]

wrote:
> My problem with the original exchange was that Kimmage wasn't
> doing anything more interesting than saying "I have more credibility
> than you, David."

I wonder what units are used to measure credibility.

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:17:28 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
wrote:

>Hmmm. That's an interesting theory of redemption you've got there.

Redemption is linked to credibility?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Robert Chung]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:17:28 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
> wrote:
>
>> Hmmm. That's an interesting theory of redemption you've got there.
>
> Redemption is linked to credibility?

Some people appear to think so. I don't, particularly.

[Robert Chung]

wrote:

> IMHO, Kimmage probably does have more credibility than
> Millar. I don't know either and can't speak to their morality.
>
> My problem with the original exchange was that Kimmage wasn't
> doing anything more interesting than saying "I have more credibility
> than you, David." No additional information was obtained or
> conveyed to the reader.

That's certainly part of the problem but what came across to me was that
Kimmage appear to be both bitter and interested in establishing a purity
standard. That, to me, is a dangerous combination. In fact, Bret
overlooked something when he wrote that I was equating Kimmage's and
Millar's credibility--he missed the possibility that I think that Millar
is the one with greater credibility.

[Stu Fleming]

Donald Munro wrote:
> wrote:
>
>>My problem with the original exchange was that Kimmage wasn't
>>doing anything more interesting than saying "I have more credibility
>>than you, David."
>
>
> I wonder what units are used to measure credibility.
>

Inverse bogons.

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
Donald Munro > wrote:

> wrote:
> > My problem with the original exchange was that Kimmage wasn't
> > doing anything more interesting than saying "I have more credibility
> > than you, David."
>
> I wonder what units are used to measure credibility.

The diogenes. One diogenes is one percentile from the
norm. The norm is your average news outlet.

--
Michael Press

[Sandy]

Robert Chung a écrit :
> wrote:
>
>
>> IMHO, Kimmage probably does have more credibility than
>> Millar. I don't know either and can't speak to their morality.
>>
>> My problem with the original exchange was that Kimmage wasn't
>> doing anything more interesting than saying "I have more credibility
>> than you, David." No additional information was obtained or
>> conveyed to the reader.
>>
>
> That's certainly part of the problem but what came across to me was that
> Kimmage appear to be both bitter and interested in establishing a purity
> standard. That, to me, is a dangerous combination. In fact, Bret
> overlooked something when he wrote that I was equating Kimmage's and
> Millar's credibility--he missed the possibility that I think that Millar
> is the one with greater credibility.
>
>
>
Hmm. There you have me confused.
"More" credibility, therefore positive, not negative credibility ? Or
are he and Kimmage sharing space under the line ?

Credibility for having doped, having tried to lie about it, having been
forced to admit the truth that was put on his table before him ?

Or for having had no option but not to ride for a living for a period of
time, or for not having been demonstrated a recidivist, at least yet ?

Or for having an effective marketing campaign for a pack rider,
illustrious for soaking sun in Biarritz and having cute looks ?

I must have missed something - what was it ?

[Donald Munro]

wrote:
>> > My problem with the original exchange was that Kimmage wasn't
>> > doing anything more interesting than saying "I have more credibility
>> > than you, David."

Donald Munro wrote:
>> I wonder what units are used to measure credibility.

Michael Press wrote:
> The diogenes. One diogenes is one percentile from the
> norm. The norm is your average news outlet.

Presumably Fox news is a slightly skewed norm.

[Robert Chung]

Sandy wrote:

> I must have missed something - what was it ?

Not necessarily. I was pointing out that Bret first presumed that I was
talking about morality rather than credibility (I'm not particularly
interested in morality, and I'm not quite sure how morality affects
credibility) and then presumed that I thought they were equally credible.
I was simply saying there was a third possibility: that Kimmage is more
credible than Millar, that they are equally credible, or that Millar is
more credible than Kimmage.

Having said that, Kimmage appears not only to have an agenda (nothing
unusual in that) but also an axe to grind. That's not a great combination
for credibility.

The past two hours were the quietest I'd ever experienced in my
neighborhood. It's not that way now.

[Michael Press]

In article
>,
Donald Munro > wrote:

> wrote:
> >> > My problem with the original exchange was that Kimmage wasn't
> >> > doing anything more interesting than saying "I have more credibility
> >> > than you, David."
>
> Donald Munro wrote:
> >> I wonder what units are used to measure credibility.
>
> Michael Press wrote:
> > The diogenes. One diogenes is one percentile from the
> > norm. The norm is your average news outlet.
>
> Presumably Fox news is a slightly skewed norm.

They are all skewed. Do you actually discern differences
in credibility, once you allow for your own bias?

Fox News, LA Times, Washington Post,
Atlanta*Journal-Constitution, CNN, your local news
station, ...

--
Michael Press

[Robert Chung]

Michael Press wrote:

> They are all skewed. Do you actually discern differences
> in credibility, once you allow for your own bias?

Kull, Ramsay, and Lewis. 2003. "Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq
War." Political Science Quarterly 118(4): 569-598.

[Howard Kveck]

In article >,
Curtis L. Russell > wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:17:28 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
> wrote:
>
> >Hmmm. That's an interesting theory of redemption you've got there.
>
> Redemption is linked to credibility?
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

This is starting to sound like some strange S&H Green Stamps / "establish a line
of credibility" thing.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:11:18 +0200, Sandy > wrote:

>I must have missed something - what was it ?

That we're looking for credibility among dopers. What we need is a
clean moralist that observed, but never took drugs. Unfortunately,
Tugboat is dead.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 19:27:23 -0700, Howard Kveck
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Curtis L. Russell > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 5 Jul 2006 20:17:28 +0200, "Robert Chung" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Hmmm. That's an interesting theory of redemption you've got there.
>>
>> Redemption is linked to credibility?
>>
>> Curtis L. Russell
>> Odenton, MD (USA)
>> Just someone on two wheels...
>
> This is starting to sound like some strange S&H Green Stamps / "establish a line
>of credibility" thing.

Interestingly, all we have left are centrifuges. No more mixers,
freezers, refrigerators or coolers. You can have the centrifuges cheap
- all we want to do now is clean off the shelves, close up the store
and go home.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[benjo maso]

"Curtis L. Russell" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:11:18 +0200, Sandy > wrote:
>
>>I must have missed something - what was it ?
>
> That we're looking for credibility among dopers. What we need is a
> clean moralist that observed, but never took drugs. Unfortunately,
> Tugboat is dead.


Tugboat recieved a blood transfusion. He would have been put in the pillory
by all those other moralists...

Benjo

[Stu Fleming]

benjo maso wrote:

> Tugboat recieved a blood transfusion. He would have been put in the pillory
> by all those other moralists...

So it is entirely possible that if a tag with "Tugboat" on it is found
in Fuentes' files, it is for a legitimate reason...

Can someone get in touch with Basso's vet an enquire about previous
medical history? Everyone may just be jumping to conclusions here.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >,
Michael Press ') wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Donald Munro > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>> >> > My problem with the original exchange was that Kimmage wasn't
>> >> > doing anything more interesting than saying "I have more
>> >> > credibility than you, David."
>>
>> Donald Munro wrote:
>> >> I wonder what units are used to measure credibility.
>>
>> Michael Press wrote:
>> > The diogenes. One diogenes is one percentile from the
>> > norm. The norm is your average news outlet.
>>
>> Presumably Fox news is a slightly skewed norm.
>
> They are all skewed. Do you actually discern differences
> in credibility, once you allow for your own bias?
>
> Fox News, LA Times, Washington Post,
> Atlanta*Journal-Constitution, CNN, your local news
> station, ...

The BBC.

I'm not pretending they're always unbiased, nor that any presentation of
the news is not inevitably even if unconsciously selective, nor that
individual journalist may not from time to time demonstrate bias. But
the BBC as a whole tries very hard indeed to be impartial and unbiased,
and on the whole it does a creditable job. It's as close to a credible
news source as you're likely to find, and a large part of the reason is
that it's owned neither by a proprietor nor a government, but by a
public.

And it's worth pointing out that every British government in my lifetime
has both hated and feared it, and tried very hard to clip its wings.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"The result is a language that... not even its mother could
love. Like the camel, Common Lisp is a horse designed by
committee. Camels do have their uses."
;; Scott Fahlman, 7 March 1995

[Sandy]

Stu Fleming a écrit :
> benjo maso wrote:
>
>> Tugboat recieved a blood transfusion. He would have been put in the
>> pillory by all those other moralists...
>
> So it is entirely possible that if a tag with "Tugboat" on it is found
> in Fuentes' files, it is for a legitimate reason...
>
> Can someone get in touch with Basso's vet an enquire about previous
> medical history? Everyone may just be jumping to conclusions here.

.... and let's not forget VDB !! At least he was original with the
canine angle !

[Tim Lines]

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:11:18 +0200, Sandy > wrote:
>
>
>>I must have missed something - what was it ?
>
>
> That we're looking for credibility among dopers. What we need is a
> clean moralist that observed, but never took drugs. Unfortunately,
> Tugboat is dead.

Not true. They just want you to BELIEVE that. He's actually alive and
well. Living in Argentina with Adolf Hitler and Jim Morrison.

[B. Lafferty]

"Tim Lines" > wrote in message
. ..
> Curtis L. Russell wrote:
>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 23:11:18 +0200, Sandy > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I must have missed something - what was it ?
>>
>>
>> That we're looking for credibility among dopers. What we need is a
>> clean moralist that observed, but never took drugs. Unfortunately,
>> Tugboat is dead.
>
Living in Argentina with Adolf Hitler and Jim Morrison.

Talk about strange bedfellows.

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:50:06 -0700, Tim Lines > wrote:

>Not true. They just want you to BELIEVE that. He's actually alive and
>well. Living in Argentina with Adolf Hitler and Jim Morrison.

Lucky for Tugboat - I hear Adolf was a dog person.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

[Donald Munro]

Tim Lines wrote:
>>Not true. They just want you to BELIEVE that. He's actually alive and
>>well. Living in Argentina with Adolf Hitler and Jim Morrison.

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
> Lucky for Tugboat - I hear Adolf was a dog person.

And his mother looked like eva braun.

[[email protected]]

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/browse_frm/thread/113b3306cef45a63/